Slum dwellers response to flooding events in the megacities of India · 2011-05-26 · housing at...

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Slum dwellers response to flooding eventsin the megacities of India

Monalisa Chatterjee

Received: 1 November 2009 /Accepted: 10 March 2010 /Published online: 27 March 2010# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Megacities in developing countries are rapidly transforming places. Under theimpetus of global change processes and consequent transformations at the environ-mental, social, cultural, political and economical scales; factors causing disasters andlosses are changing every day. These changes are also altering society’s ability torespond to hazard events. This paper examines the response of slum dwellers who arethe most vulnerable and marginal section of urban population and often located inplaces with high hazard risk with less or no means to reduce the impact of floodevents. Marginal population groups in megacities suffer the negative consequences oflarge scale global change processes and do not benefit from the risk mitigationstrategies adopted by city authorities. The paper therefore argues that people living ininformal settlements instead have to employ a combination of structural means andcomplex networks of assistance to recover from floods. Based on the results deducedfrom data collected with the help of household surveys in the slums of Mumbai, thestudy demonstrates the types of coping strategies used by slum dwellers and thechanging characteristics of these mechanisms under the influence of global changeprocesses in megacities. Furthermore, results show that capacity to respond is notequally distributed among slum dwellers due to underlying socio cultural divisions andemerging economic and political constraints. The paper concludes that to addressexisting discrepancies in urban societies and within slum settlements, flood mitigationstrategies will have to be (1) more inclusive of marginal population (2) sensitive to thelimitations and scope of old and new social structures and (3) incorporate innovativenetworks of support to deal with the consequences of global change.

Keywords Adaptation . Cities . Hazards . India . Mitigation . Slums . Vulnerability

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2010) 15:337–353DOI 10.1007/s11027-010-9221-6

M. Chatterjee (*)Department of Geography, Rutgers University, 54 Joyce Kilmer Blvd., Piscataway,NJ 08854-8045, USAe-mail: [email protected]

1 Introduction

Megacities in developing countries are changing into centers of high population density,infrastructure, investments, economic growth opportunities, networking, information andconnectivity. Concentration of people, resources and information in one place produces acomplex system that is dynamic in nature. Furthermore the complex interaction of the‘socio economic megacity system’ with its local ecology produces a unique humandominated ecosystem that is altered unprecedentedly with ongoing socioeconomicprocesses. Among other consequences, interaction of these global and local environmentalprocesses aggravate the risk of extreme natural events (IPCC 2007a) and forces ofglobalization generate conditions of vulnerability for populations in megacities (Mitchell2005) but such processes of global change also develop avenues of improved response andresilience in society (Kraas 2007). This paper uses the case of monsoon floods in Mumbaito study the changing risks and vulnerability of marginalized slum dwellers and collectempirical evidence to illustrate the types of structural adjustments and socio economicstrategies adopted by households in informal settlements to recover from flood hazards. Thepaper concludes with coping strategies that could be adopted to include frequently‘excluded’ slum households in the formal hazard and environment change mitigationsystems of megacities.

The subsequent section of the paper introduces the problem of environmental hazards inmegacities that is particularly aggravated by the paradoxical growth in megacities. It isfollowed by a discussion of growing informal settlements that are the byproducts of globalprocesses in India. The next section of the paper focuses on the risk of monsoon floods inMumbai and discusses the critical problems in the flood mitigation strategy adopted afterthe 2005 floods in Mumbai. It is followed by the structural and loss redistribution strategiesadopted by marginal populations in the city to recover from floods. The final section of thepaper suggests mechanisms that can be included in formal mitigation system of megacitiesto make it an inclusive and effective practice.

2 Hazard risk in megacities

Consequences of environment change have been linked to the issue of sustainableurban development where cities have been identified as critical places of environmentrisk (Bigio 2003) and the ‘key focal points for the linkages between mitigation andadaptation’1 (IPCC 2007b). Study of urban environments in developing countries haveexamined the brown, grey and green issues (Hardoy et al. 2001) as problems ofhaphazard urban development, lack of basic facilities in these rapidly growing cities(McGranahan et al. 2001). The implication of global processes have spatially segregatedthese societies (Marcuse and Van Kempen 2000) and have marginalized and exposedcertain sections of urban population to aggravated and degraded environment conditions(Bohle 2001). In the recent past, association of cities and changing environment hasgenerated concerns about designing strategies that would assist in the development ofclimate change mitigation and adaptation practices, efficient systems of resource use

1 Page 359 -IPCC 2007b. Industry, Settlement and Society. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptationand Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. M. L. Parry, O F Canziani, J P Palutikof, P J Van DerLinden and C E Hanson 976. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

338 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2010) 15:337–353

(Muller 2007), just and adaptive institutions (Manuta and Lebel 2005) and options of riskredistribution (Mills 2005; Yucemen 2005; IPCC 2007a). Urban planners and hazardmitigation managers of developing countries are particularly looking to acquire strategiesthat simultaneously address such sustainable development and hazard risk reductionissues. However, a review of hazard mitigation studies on cities in developing countriesdisplay excessive focus at estimating risks (Wang et al. 2008), managing risks byintegrated management (Amendola et al. 2008; Wenzel et al. 2007) and an apparentpreference for technological solutions that attend to preparedness and immediateemergency response after an event. Hazard mitigation strategies observed in cases fromTurkey, Dhaka, Iran, Taiwan, China, Philippines, Mexico and India (Gulkan 2002; Huqand Alam 2003; Liu and Hammitt 1999; Pacific Disaster Center 2005; Aragon-Durand2007; MMRDA 1998) can be broadly divided into categories of structural, non structural,immediate response, legal regulations and in few cases, transfer of risk and losses.

Hazard mitigation in megacities prioritizes plans for reducing casualties, building and/orinfrastructure damage, industrial and financial losses. Structural measures are used to reducerisk of future event by construction of embankments (Faisal et al. 2003) rehabilitation ofexisting buildings (Erdik and Durukal 2008) river channels (Gupta 2007). Non structuralefforts mostly address better practices for prediction (Pacific Disaster Center 2005)community preparedness, training, advocacy and risk communication in a city (Chen et al.2006; Khan and Rahman 2007). Emergency response by increasing efficiency of rescue andrelief of affected communities is another important agenda and special emphasis is laid onimproving mobilization and coordination of multiple sectors within the cities (Pacific DisasterCenter 2006; Pearce 2003). ‘Disaster’ management plans in megacities have also raised issuesof better legal regulations for building design to ensure risk free building in the future(Ghafory-Ashtiany and Hosseini 2008). These plans recognize the need for suitableinstitutional framework and policy making to effectively implement building codes andregulations (Faisal et al. 2003; Khan and Rahman 2007). Attempts to design methods oftransferring or redistributing risks to lessen the financial losses after an event are alsodominant in recent research (Bendimerad et al. 2008; Erdik and Durukal 2008). Althoughintegration is identified as exceedingly important for hazard mitigation strategies to work inany megacity (Fernandez et al. 2006; Haque and Etkin 2007) it is often limited to concernsabout coordination and need for enhanced linkages between academic, development,municipal, infrastructural organizations in the city. Although integration of marginal sectionsof urban society in the formal hazard mitigation system of the city is a necessity for theseplans to be effective, efforts to explore options for such additions are rare (Wisner et al. 2004).Little attempt is made to connect mitigating strategies with those of advancing sustainable andequitable development (Haque and Etkin 2007) and to reduce vulnerability for secondarypopulations in urban areas (Jones 2004; Uitto 1998; Waley 2005).

Hazard planning in megacities are not associated to aspects of long term distribution ofvulnerability in cities and the existing and growing literature on this subject (Mitchell 1999;Pelling 2003; Wisner 2002). Although, research in disaster management places emphasis onthe importance of ‘community planning’, ‘public participation’, ‘partnership’; the scope ofthese approaches are confined to immediate response and recovery. The disconnectionbetween mitigation policies and long term sustainable development especially that ofmarginalized population requires a more serious inquiry and development of measures thatadvance linkages between segregated societies. Integration attempts therefore need to beexpansive and address the division between aspects like the formal—informal, old—new,social—ecological, local—global and find sustainable methods of balancing these contra-dicting realities coexisting in globalizing megacities.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2010) 15:337–353 339

3 Contrasting realities in megacities

Large scale processes have attributed a high degree of functional complexity to megacities indeveloping countries. These cities play a significant role in the economic development ofspecific countries and also contribute in the control, management and regulation of globaleconomy (Tyner 2000). Economic activities in megacities contribute to 55% of Gross NationalProduct (GNP) in low income countries, 73% in middle income countries, and 85% in highincome countries (UN - Habitat 2006). Specific megacities in developing countries likeBangkok with 10% and Metro Manila with 14% of total population account for 40% and 33%of national GDP (Fernandez et al. 2006) respectively and megacities like Mumbai account for40% of nation’s taxes (UN - Habitat 2006). Concentrations of economic activities makemegacities centers of employment opportunities. For instance, 80% of garment industries inBangladesh are located in Dhaka (Pacific Disaster Center 2006). Concentration of economicactivities, employment and investment opportunities, resources and information in megacitiesis also reflected in some of the socio economic parameters of the population. Indicators likeliteracy rate, per capita income, percent population below poverty line show that populations insuch megacities are more educated, have higher incomes than their counter parts in rest of thecountry. For example, population below poverty line in Jakarta is 5%, in comparison to 13% inrest of Indonesia (Cybriwsky 2001). Similarly, literacy rate in Mumbai is 87.14% as comparedto 65.38% for the rest of the country (Census of India 2001a, c). Therefore, in addition toeconomic capital, megacities also have high levels of human capital that present potential forgrowth. However, despite extensive growth and opportunities, megacities are also places ofgross inequalities in society. In particular, widespread population growth without adequatehousing at affordable prices results in increase of informal settlements or slums in these cities.Countries like Bangladesh (4.3) and China (2.3) register highest rates of annual slum growth.Slum population is megacities of India are also on a rapid rise. According to 2001 census,approximately 43 million people are living in slums in India. Megacities in comparison to othersmaller towns have larger number of people living in slums. Mumbai has 54.1%, Kolkata—32.5%, Chennai—18.9%, Delhi—18.7% (Census of India 2001b) of its population living inclusters of hutments without basic infrastructure and amenities (Neekhra 2008).

4 Slums in Indian cities

Slums have been a constant feature of urban landscape in India. At the time of independence in1947, slums had accommodated marginal communities like laborers and workers temporarilyemployed in construction and other sectors involved in process of city building; rehabilitatedrefugee immigrants from East and West Pakistan (Planning Commission 1951); and providedsettlement colonies for low caste communities. In present time slum settlements house largepercentages of diverse migrants groups who have moved to the cities with different waves ofmigrants looking for better livelihoods and means of survival and are unable to afford basicliving standards. Treatment of slums by government agencies has changed in the years sinceindependence. In 1950s and 60s slums were places of refuge for marginal and displacedpopulation and therefore were tolerated by the city authorities. Since slums continued to growat an alarming rate in 1970s the magnitude of the problem was realized and attempts weremade to relocate slum settlers to less centralized locations. Relocation schemes in 1970s didnot work out as emptied slum locations got resettled with old and new migrants and thereforein 1980s, slum up gradation approach was adopted to improve local habitation conditions(Das 2003). In 1990s the government adopted an enabling approach where the government


acquired a facilitating role by encouraging legislation and property rights (Neekhra 2008).However, all these attempts have not been able to eradicate the problem of slum settlementsmostly because of the (1) magnitude of the problem and (2) insufficiency of the schemes thatwere applied only to legal or notified slums, (3) inability to incorporate the changing nature ofthese settlements or the characteristics of people living in the slum development schemes and(4) a general failure to provide low cost housing for the growing population in cities of India(Dutt et al. 2003; IHDP 2005). Slum settlements therefore have continued to grow rapidly andaccommodate low income, unskilled or semi skilled migrants who move to the megacities toescape socio political discriminations, lack of livelihood and resources in villages and smallertown across the country.

Source: (Bombay Community Public Trust 2003)

Over the decades the types of people living in slum settlements have changed making ita more diverse mix of community (Box 1) sheltering people who have been unable toafford formal housing in the expensive cities of India. Households in present day slumsettlements demonstrate diversity in its socio cultural background (i.e. region, caste,language, and religion) and economic characteristics (type of occupation, sector ofemployment and income). In addition to that, slum households also are more exposed todifferent processes of globalization and have access to increased knowledge andinformation. But residential and economic segregation based on income, access toresources and facilities like proper drainage and sewage disposal and shelter, contribute

BOX 1: Profile of Slum Community in Mumbai

Socio economic profile of households in slums show that these households are more likely to

have four to five family members; adults are likely to be educated up to middle school;

occupied in the service, industry, transport, trade, construction sectors or self employed as

small businessmen or women headed households with women working as domestic help;

majority of household will have earnings in the range of RS 1000- 6000 (US$20-120) per

month, with approximately 10% families earning less than RS 1000 (US$20) and another

10% earning more than RS 6000 (US $120) per month; and greater number of family are

likely to be living in one or two rooms owned by the household. Similarly, socio cultural

attributes of these slum households also show a certain level of diversity in families and are

not limited to (as was the case in 1950s) in state (local from Maharashtra) households or

marginal religious groups (Muslims) and caste (low caste). Although these slums do not

have organized sewage disposal, or drainage system, majority of them have access to legal or

illegal electricity and a considerable number of household can afford to use household items

like television, refrigerator and air coolers.


in creating inequalities and separate realities of megacities, reflected in every aspect ofurban life including flood risks and vulnerability to losses from flood events.

Slum dwellers suffer from a considerable degree of physical risk and social vulnerabilityto losses from flood events. Slum settlements are mostly located in environmentallydegraded sections of the city (Pryer 2003; Gilbert 2005; Gulis et al. 2004) that are atincreased risks from exposure to natural processes and consequent health and pollutionrelated problems. Many megacities in developing countries are developed on reclaimedland (e.g. Mumbai, Singapore, Bangkok) and filling of marshy areas in one location shiftswater to other low lying areas where informal settlements are commonly located, raisingtheir risks from further inundation and rise of ground water table.

4.1 Risk of floods in slums of Mumbai

Mumbai is located on the seaward edge of the Sahyardi (Western Ghats) in an area that containscreeks and tidal marshes; although the topography is low it is not a plain. Many of the creekshave silted up or been filled in to support urban development. High amounts of rainfall duringthe monsoon season combined with the undulating terrain and inadequate rainwater drainagesystem result in annual floods. Because of their proximity to wetlands and marshes the centraland western parts of Mumbai are most prone to floods and flood-related losses. The worstproblems occur when high tides and heavy rains coincide. Slum settlements houseapproximately 55% of Mumbai’s population and are mostly located in low lying areas closeto marshes and other marginal places (O’Hare et al. 1998). These informal settlements arefrequently flooded during monsoon season and the slum households have devised their ownmethods of living with the risk by adapting strategies to reduce the risk of losses andmechanisms of loss redistribution after flood events. This section of the paper presents resultsfrom survey conducted in selected slums (Fig. 1) affected by floods in 2005 (Box 2).

BOX 2: Flood Event in 2005

The Western Ghats including the city of Mumbai experienced unusually heavy rainfall

beginning in the third week of July 2005. The most rainfall was recorded on 26 July

when the city received 944 millimeters of rain in one day (37 inches) (Government of

Maharashtra 2005). The floods caused extensive damage to Mumbai and surrounding

areas. Mumbai Metropolitan Area authorities reported 700 human casualties, 244,110

houses with total or partial damage, 97 collapsed school buildings, 5667 damaged

electricity transformers, together with losses to national highways and transportation

systems (52 broken local trains, 41,000 taxi cabs, 900 buses, 10,000 trucks). In addition

to the direct impacts, the flood event had cascading effects at different scales. Informal

settlements were one of the worst affected sections in the city.


5 Methodology and key findings

Two slum settlements located in L and P South wards of Mumbai city were chosen for datacollection. These wards were selected for the studies because they: (1) contain high

Source: Base Map (MMRDA 1996) Flood Information adapted from (Gupta 2007)

Fig. 1 Flood affected areas in Mumbai (July 2005). Source: Base Map (MMRDA 1996) Flood Informationadapted from (Gupta 2007)


percentages of slum dwellers and (2) were severely affected by floods in 2005. Fiftyhouseholds were randomly selected as observational units to collect data on flood impact,mitigation and redistribution practices used to recover from flood losses. Results from thesurvey on mitigation measures used by slum dwellers at different stages of the 2005 floodevent (during, immediately after and in the long term recovery stage) were juxtaposed withsocio economic, political and cultural characteristics of the households to understand howthese characteristics correlate with distribution of vulnerability in Mumbai slums. Data wasgrouped by evolving themes and cross-tabulated to develop typologies of practices,processes, choices and opinions. Chi Square tests are used to identify relations betweendifferent social, economic and mitigation variables.

Analysis of survey date yielded the following results. (1) Formal flood mitigationstrategies adopted by the city authorities do not reduce risks for people living in informalsettlements. (2) Slum dwellers adopt structural means to reduce the risk of losses fromfloods but due to lack of resources and/or knowledge of building strategies these meanshave limited effect. (3) Slum dwellers instead heavily rely on individually developed lossredistribution networks to recover after hazard events. The next sections of the paperdiscuss these results in detail.

6 Problems in formal flood mitigation system

Mitigation strategies used in Mumbai indicates patterns of disconnect between differentsectors in city. Public funds are more likely to be used for large scale risk reduction policiesthat benefit members of the formal economic sector and global clients (Arunachalam 2005).Flood mitigation in Mumbai primarily involved improvement in road transportation,development of buffer zones for business districts and beautification of surrounding areas.For problem areas and communities like slums, state institutions only took partialresponsibility of immediate relief after an event (Concerned Citizen’s Commission 2005a,b). Besides not getting any benefits from use of public funds, this section of urbanpopulation does not even receive suggestions and consultancies from urban planning anddevelopment institutions to adapt hazard risk reduction techniques in building designs etc(Quarantelli 2001; Wisner 1998). Furthermore, slums dwellers instead receive theconsequences of risk mitigation strategies adopted by formal agencies. For example, slumdwellers are uprooted and displaced to make space for the structural changes made by cityauthorities to improve the infrastructural facilities for formal society. Global processes andlocal socio economic conditions affect hazard mitigation at both formal and informal levelshowever formal and informal sectors remain distinctly separate from each other. Thisseparation is partly because little has been done to connect the formal and informal aspectsin megacities like Mumbai and find a balance between the separate yet counter productivesectors coexisting in the megacities (Davis 2004; Winayanti and Lang 2004).

Problems with flood mitigation in slums are therefore part of the larger developmentproblem experienced in megacities of developing countries. In megacities large populationssurvive on limited natural resources, and poor households do not have any access to thesealready scarce resources. For example, proper drainage and waste disposal system insettlements are crucial for effective flood mitigation and since slums are informalsettlements without proper infrastructure these settlements are prone to the risk of floods.This problem is even more evident in case of non-notified slums because these slums areunregistered and illegal and therefore cannot be formally integrated with the developmentplans of the urban system. Instead of being a part of the larger urban system and be


included in the benefits of development and formal flood mitigation, slum populations aretreated as displaced and transitory migrants who are refugees of the urban system and willgo away in the near future. In reality few of these households move from the informalsettlements to formal settlements but mostly establish themselves in that space and learn toabsorb losses and adapt to the existing risks of that place. The unresolved issue of who isthe city planning for and who should benefit from the mitigation strategies results in theslum dwellers being treated only on an humanitarian basis with relief of in kind andmedical assistance on the event of floods but on the whole excluded when formal mitigationis designed for the citizens of the city. Mitigation of risk and vulnerability from floodstherefore falls into the vicious circle of illegality and issues of illegitimate rights to thebenefits of urban development. Anything more than providing humanitarian aid wouldconsolidate and legitimize informal settlement’s existence and therefore is not addressed bythe formal agencies.

The other set of problems with flood mitigation in megacities is the emphasis onmitigation per se and limited types of strategies adopted by city authorities. Structuraladjustments are the most common type of strategy adopted in the formal urban floodmitigation system. Structural changes are also adopted by every slum household to reducethe risk of losses from floods. However, the main thrust of adjustment in informal societiesis adapting to the risk by developing support networks and affiliations that would assist inloss redistribution and recovery after the event. To be effective, urban hazard mitigationplanners in megacities need to understand the crucial role played by support networks in therecovery process of the slum dwellers and hence develop a balance by promoting differenttypes of mitigation and adaptation strategies (like preparedness, structural adjustments,awareness, effective emergency response and safety networks for quick recovery) to assistboth the formal and the informal sectors of society. The case of Mumbai shows that in caseof formal population, structural mechanisms are most common mitigation strategies and forslum settlements it is limited to rescuing, providing relief and little emphasis is given toother innovative means of risk mitigation and adaptation. Furthermore, the case of Mumbaialso shows that slum households have developed informal yet unique mechanisms thatassist them in dealing with flood consequences and these mechanisms if integrated with theformal flood mitigation system of the city can make it a robust, effective and inclusivesystem.

7 Flood mitigation in slums

7.1 Structural adjustments

The risk of living in marshy areas require constant effort at raising the building to stabilize theprocess of sinking. With excessive rainfall during monsoon season slum dwellers have had toadopt structural mechanisms to live with this risk and minimize its losses. Raising thefoundation and filling rooms with soil and other debris is a commonly adopted strategyamong slum inhabitants. Slum dwellers, therefore, invest approximately RS 5000 (US $ 100)every 2 or 3 years to raise their rooms and minimize the risk of inundation during monsoonperiod.

After 2005 flood event approximately 53% of households surveyed raised theirfoundation before monsoons in 2006 to ensure that the event of pervious year is notrepeated. Another structural adjustment observed among 22% of surveyed slumdwellers was construction of second floor, a method that was adopted by higher


income households in the settlement. The most common adjustment observed was anelevated platform in the house that was adopted by 72% of households surveyed. Theelevated platform primarily serves the purpose of a storage place for all importantthings in household and to shelter the members of the household in case of flooding.Poor household resort to elevating a board to secure some of the important andexpensive items of the household (Fig. 2). Widening and covering of drains were alsoapplied in some neighborhoods where local groups collectively cleaned, widened andcovered drains in the settlement before monsoons. Although covering of drains improvedthe sanitary conditions of the neighborhood some residents of the settlement found itrestricting the flow of rain water during monsoons and therefore increasing the risk ofinundation in the area.

Structural adjustments have limited effect on reducing the risk of floods because thesesettlements are located in places like creek areas, stream channels and other naturallyflooding zones and therefore permanently mitigating the hazard is impossible. Furthermore,since not every household is able to invest the money, therefore the ability or inability toadopt structural adjustments also produces differential vulnerability from monsoons withinthe same neighborhood. It was observed that in the same lane of houses there is a differencein the height of rooms ranging to a few feet making some households more vulnerable toexcessive inundation in comparison to others (Fig. 2). Other type and more dominantalternative used by informal households was the use of loss reduction strategies to facilitaterecovery.

7.2 Support networks after the event

Relief and recovery for slum dwellers is dependent on the government, non government, privateand local agencies and the household’s ability to access resources from these multiple sourcessimultaneously. In case of Mumbai floods in 2005, relief was distributed by NGOs to 64%

Height of Previous Ceiling

Wall Extended

Filling of room to increase its height

Broken Door Elevated to safeguard Household Items from Monsoon Floods

Stairs to the Added Second Floor

Room with much lower base than room in the opposite side

Source: Author’s Photographs from Study site in 2007

Fig. 2 Structural adjustments by slum dwellers


households, Private Institutions—62%, Local People—50%, Government—40%, and PoliticalParties to 26% of the surveyed population. After the event, households had supportfrom more than one agency; for example, 72% received rations (food material cookedand uncooked) from three or more sources. NGOs and Private Institutions commonlydistributed in-kind material aid to 50% and 26% of the surveyed populationrespectively. Support like medical assistance was received by fewer households(44%). NGOs (for 34% of households) and the government (for 28% of households)were the two agencies that helped with medical support. Flood compensation fundswere distributed by government to only 38% of households. Relief and rescue periodafter floods are of short durations therefore once this period is over slum dwellers haveto rely on their own resources for long term recovery and loss reduction.

7.3 Long term recovery and networks of loss redistribution

Slum dwellers use a diversified loss redistributive system to recover and reconstruct afterflood losses. Flood Loss Redistributive System (LRS) (Fig. 3) of slum residents can becompared to a lattice (Alexander 1978), a branching system comprised of many linksbetween its constituent elements. Depending on the lattice’s degree of development its linksmay be simple and unidirectional or bidirectional, between just a few nodes, or arranged in

Source: Primary Fieldwork by Author, 2007 Note: Support networks are stated in sets; for example, [1,2] 4 shows that this local network comprises affected households (1) and neighbors (2) and 4 households have usedthis support network for long term recovery after floods. The support networks are also categorized based on structural hierarchy in society (such as local, ward level, city level, national and international support networks).

Fig. 3 Loss redistributive system of slum dwellers


complex series and hierarchies that include nested subsets and connections with largercontexts. Flood affected households are represented as nodes on the lattice; these are linkedto other nodes that stand for the different individuals or groups among whom losses areredistributed. The study of LRS shows that slum dwellers are connected with multipleagencies at different scales of society for support after floods and less developed LRS couldbe a cause for aggravated vulnerability for specific households in these communities. Socioeconomic and cultural factors of the households play a significant role to determine the typeof sources available to specific slum dwellers. Accessibility to different groups thereforeestablishes effective mitigation for low income populations in Mumbai. Support networksrange from local to global levels and informal to formal sectors.

Family and kin belong to local, city, national and global networks of assistance. Civicand informal social institutions of support used are mainly of local, ward and city level(Table 1). Global networks of support (approximately 8% of total networks observed) aremostly through employer affiliations and this source of assistance is predominantlyforwarded to permanent and skilled employees. Slum dwellers maintain multiple affiliationsto acquire support after an event and economic resources received from these sources areused to reconstruct, recover and also take mitigative steps to reduce risk of losses in future.On the basis of this strategy, households without access to such memberships are morevulnerable and marginalized.

8 Adapting and integrating

Mitigation by structural changes only benefits formal urban population and informalpopulation are more dependent on individually developed socio economic affiliations.Since slum dwellers do not benefit from the resistance strategies like structural mechanismsthat shields or resists against the thrust of changing natural processes and mitigate hazardevents in society, adapting to the risks by developing a strong resilience system thatprovides layers of support networks is a suitable alternative to develop means of quickrecovery especially for marginalized communities. Furthermore, adapting to improveresponse mechanisms and resilience for slum dwellers could also be integrated with issuesof development of the community. Field results determine avenues for such interventions inexisting practices but these interventions will have to incorporate typical characteristics ofchanging slums settlements to be effective.

8.1 Networks for diverse slum communities

To incorporate an effective resilience system in slum communities it would be essential tounderstand attributes of informal societies in megacities. For example it is important toremember that informal communities are heterogeneous communities and therefore notevery household is equally marginalized or vulnerable at a given time. In slums households’factors like religion, caste, region, employment type and economic sector, language group,gender, demographic composition of households, etc play a significant role in determiningthe level of vulnerability each household suffers. As results from the Mumbai case showsthat vulnerability for households with different religion, regional and economic identitiesshifts at different stages of hazard cycle (Chatterjee 2008) it is therefore important, whendeveloping support networks for such communities, to consider socio cultural character-istics that render households more vulnerable or resilient during, immediately after and atrecovery stages of flood events.


Tab

le1

Multilevelsupportnetworks

Sou

rces

ofecon

omic

assistance

afterfloods

Neighbo

rsFriends

Fam

ilymem

bers

Inform

alestablishm

ents

Money

lenders

Local

traders

Selfhelp

grou

psReligious

organizatio

nEmploy

ers

Formal

Banks

Total

Percent

tototal

Local

49

720

3022

80

20

102

42.5

Ward

011

513

90

015

00

5322

.1

City

012

110

00

06

120

4117

.1

National

00

70

00

00

171

2510

.4

Global

00

40

00

00

150

197.92

Total

432

3433

3922

821

461

240

100

PrimaryFieldworkby

Autho

r,20

07

Num

bers

inthis

tablerepresentthenumberof

households

usingthat

type

ofassistance

network,

forexam

pleforthefirstfigure,4households

used

localsourcessuch

asneighborsto

acquireeconom

icassistance

torecoverafterthefloods

of2005

inMum

bai.Supportsprovided

throughthesenetworks

areof

differentcapacitiesrangingbetween

approxim

atelyRs.10

00to

45000(U

S$20–1

000).N

oteveryrespon

dent

was

willingto

prov

ideaccuratefigu

resforecon

omic

assistance

received

butitwas

observed

thatlocal

supp

ortnetworks

prov

ided

smalleram

ountsin

assistance

incomparisonto

natio

nalandglob

alnetworks

ofsupport.Exceptforafew

exceptions

(e.g.supportfrom

glob

alnetworks),thesupportreceived

was

able

tocoveronly

alim

itedpercentage

oflosses

suffered


8.2 Variety in support networks

To ensure support networks for all types of households in slum settlement it isimportant to develop a resilient system that has diverse components of assistance.Support networks need to be of different kinds and not be limited to those related todistribution of relief material and economic assistance. Such networks could also bedesigned to provide physical, informational, legal assistance to slum households toreduce the risks and overcome losses from floods. For example, in case of Mumbai itwas observed that people were getting only certain types of assistance from multiplesources while other types of aid, which would substantiate and support types of helpgiven, was not offered by any agency. Cleaning of rooms in neighborhood, forexample, was a time consuming and important component of response to floods yet noinstitutional or community help was provided to support such activities in affectedsettlements. Instead all assistance after floods was focused on providing food, waterand other household items. Though these things are important resources, after a pointthey are useless unless the household has a clean place to store and use these items.Hazard mitigation therefore has to be sensitive to the real requirements of floodaffected slum households and provide support networks that could provide legitimateassistance so that affected households can quickly consolidate their lives after the event.Similarly, in the long term recovery process slum settlements also suffer from lack ofinformation and consultancy on how changes in the local urban environment affect riskof floods for their settlements. Easily available sources of information, legal supportand mitigation counseling can assist vulnerable households for example to makeinformed decisions about building construction that could prevent losses from futureevents without adversely affecting the local environment.

8.3 Consolidation of existing networks

In addition to different support networks, for a society to be resilient it is essential for it to securenetworks that are already informally in place and operating successfully. For example, a welldeveloped loss redistributive system is a safety network for populations that are in imminentrisks from hazards like floods. Slum populations already show a certain degree of enterprise andability to mobilize networks of support for economic assistance at different scales of society. Tohave a resilient system it is therefore important to harness their existing networks andconsolidate them to reduce exploitation and randomness. For example, economic assistancenetworks between affected households and employers are inconsistent and are based onindividual employer’s sense of responsibility and employee’s ability to acquire an arrangement.Although, this type of assistance associations were observed in high numbers and hencecontribute to resilience in the community in case of Mumbai, the randomness of this systemmakes it a unsustainable and unpredictable strategy. However, if the strategy is consolidatedand institutionalized then the LRS will become robust and effective. Furthermore this type ofrisk reduction could be applied to other types of crises as well. Results from the fieldworkshows that slum dwellers use similar strategies for different types of uncertainties and crises. Inaddition to flood losses such crises include health or income problems experienced byhouseholds. Based on household perceptions of surveyed population the type of insurance orredistribution system coverage most preferred are health, property and then income. Withexposure to options and strategies, slum dwellers are also exploring ways to reduce their risksand add safety nets. These mechanisms are flexible and designed to fit the requirements of slumcommunities, supporting and building on them would add and consolidate their resilience.


9 Conclusion

Lessons from the case of Mumbai can be transferred and used in megacities of otherdeveloping countries as hazard mitigation in other cities are also similarly influenced byforces of global change. Low income communities in megacities of developing countriesshow a similar level of geographical inertia2 because safeguarding their livelihood is moreimportant for their survival in these transforming societies. Therefore low incomepopulations living in informal settlements persist in neighborhoods without basic facilitiesand with increasing risks of losses from extreme environmental hazards. Instead of movingaway, slum dwellers try to develop their resiliency by adapting to the risks andincorporating methods that assists in adjusting to hazard risks through social organization.The challenge for sustainable urban planners, urban hazard mitigation managers and hazardscholars therefore is to find alternatives of further strengthening these practices and developstrategies to facilitate their adjustments. Therefore at one level, innovative practices need tobe developed to link lower income communities to multi layered risk reduction andredistribution system by providing different types of support and options of adaptation toreduce the growing risks from floods in megacities.

In addition to mitigating the risks of floods losses the other set of challenges for urbanplanners and scholars is to find integrative ways of dealing with the issues of informalsettlements and develop means of reducing the divisions between such populations withmainstream urban population. Such efforts would require addressing the contested issues ofland ownership and affordable housing in megacities like Mumbai and therefore wouldrequire prioritizing improvement of human welfare conditions within megacities instead ofexclusive focus on unprecedented economic development.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Robin Leichenko and James K. Mitchell for theirsuggestions on previous drafts and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

Alexander C (1978) A city is not a tree. In: Kaplan SKaR (ed) Humanscape: Environments for people.Duxbury, Massachusetts, pp 377–401

Alexander D (2000) Confronting catastrophe. Oxford University Press, New YorkAmendola AJL-B, Okada N, Shi P (2008) Towards integrated disaster risk management: case studies and

trends from asia. Nat Hazards 44:163–168Aragon-Durand F (2007) Urbanization and flood vulnerability in the peri urban interface of Mexico City.

Disasters 31:477–494Arunachalam, B. (2005). Drainage problems of Brihan Mumbai. Economic Political Weekly, September 3Bendimerad F, Fernandez J, Reyes M (2008) Enhancing city-to-city sharing and social participation in

disaster risk reduction earthquakes and megacities initiativesBigio AG (2003) Cities and climate change. In: Kreimer A, Arnold M, Carlin A (eds) Building safer cities.

World Bank, Washington DC, pp 91–99Bohle H-G (2001) Vulnerability and criticality International Human Dimensions Programme on Global

Environmental Change Update, 2001

2 ‘When persistent damage to human settlements does not provoke their abandonment or relocation and theinhabitants therefore cohabit with damage and rebuild or repair it whenever possible.’ Page 56 Alexander2000. Confronting Catastrophe. New York: Oxford University Press.


Bombay Community Public Trust (2003) Posha Nakhwa municipal school: Profile of the community.Bombay Community Public Trust, Mumbai

Census of India (2001a) District-specific literates and literacy rates. Government of IndiaCensus of India (2001b) Population trends - 2001. Census of IndiaCensus of India (2001c) Provisional tables. Literary Rate. GOvernment of IndiaChatterjee M (2008) Shifting vulnerabilities: a study in flood affected slums of Mumbai. UNU Source

10:100–109Chen L-C, Liu Y-C, Chan K-C (2006) Integrated community based disaster management program in Taiwan:

a case study of Shang- An village. Nat Hazards 37:209–223Concerned Citizen’s Commission (2005a). Mumbai marooned: an enquiry into Mumbai floods—An

executive summary. MumbaiConcerned Citizen’s Commission (2005b). Mumbai marooned: an enquiry into the Mumbai floods, 2005 Full

Report. Mumbai, Conservation Action Trust: 115. http://cat.org.in/index.php/site/article/concerned-citizens-commission-an-enquiry-into-mumbais-floods-2005/

Cybriwsky R (2001) City profile: Jakarta. Cities 18:199–210Das PK (2003) Slums: The continuing struggle for housing. In: Patel S, Masselos J (eds) Bombay and

Mumbai: The City in transition. Oxford University Press, Bombay, pp 207–234Davis M (2004) Planet of slums—Urban involution and the informal proletariat. New Left Review 5–34Dutt AK, Noble AG, Venugopal G, Subbiah S (eds) (2003) Challenges to Asian urbanization in the 21st

century. Kluwer Academic, NetherlandsErdik M, Durukal E (2008) Earthquake and its mitigation in Istanbul. Nat Hazards 44:181–197Faisal IM, Kabir MR, Nishat A (2003) The Disastrous flood of 1998 and long term mitigation strategies for

Dhaka City. Nat Hazards 28:85–99Fernandez JSM, Bendimerad F, Cardona OD (2006) Application of indicators in urban and megacities

disaster risk management: a case study of Metro Manila. Earthquakes and Megacities InitiativesGhafory-Ashtiany M, Hosseini M (2008) Post BAM recovery and reconstruction. Nat Hazards 44:229–

241Gilbert A (2005) The challenge of slums: global report on human settlements 2003. Prog Hum Geogr

29:118–120Government of Maharashtra, I (2005) Maharashtra floods 2005. 17. Government of Maharashtra, MumbaiGulis GM, Mulumba JAA, Juma O, Kakosova B (2004) Health status of people of slums in Nairobi, Kenya.

Environ Res 96:219–227Gulkan P (2002) Setting the stage for urban risk mitigation: seismic risks and compulsory insurance policy

issues in Turkey. In Second Annual IIASA-DPRI Meeting Laxenburg, AustriaGupta K (2007) Urban flood resilience planning and management and lessons for the future: a case study of

Mumbai, India. Urban Water J 4:183–194Haque CE, Etkin D (2007) People and community as constituent parts of hazards: the significance of societal

dimensions in hazards analysis. Nat Hazards 41:271–282Hardoy JE, Mitlin D, Satterthwaite D (2001) Environmental problems in an urbanizing world. Earthscan, LondonHuq S, Alam M (2003) Flood management and vulnerability of Dhaka City. In: Kreimer A, Arnold M, Carlin

A (eds) Building safer cities. World Bank, Washington DC, pp 121–135IHDP (2005) Science plan: Urbanization and global environment change. International Human Dimensions

Programme on Global Environmental Change, BonnIPCC (2007a) Climate change 2007: Synthesis teport: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ed. R. K. a. A. R.Pachauri, 104. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC

IPCC (2007b) Industry, settlement and society. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Van Der Linden PJ,Hanson CE (eds) climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Contribution of WorkingGroup II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, p 976

Jones B (2004) The geography of vulnerability: Who is at risk to multiple hazards in greater Vancouver,British Columbia, Canada? University of Waterloo (Canada), Canada

Khan MR, Rahman MA (2007) Partnership approach to disaster management in Bangladesh: a critical policyassessment. Nat Hazards 41

Kraas F (2007) Megacities and global change: key priorities. The Geographical Journal 173:79–82Liu J-T, Hammitt JK (1999) Perceived risk and value of workplace safety in a developing country. Journal of

Risk Research, Journal of Risk Research J1 - Journal of Risk Research 2:263–275Manuta J, Lebel L (2005) Climate change and the risks of flood disasters in Asia: Crafting adaptive and just

institutions. Unit for Social and Environmental Research, ThailandMarcuse P, Van Kempen R (2000) Globalizing cities: A new spatial order. Blackwell Publishing Professional


http://cat.org.in/index.php/site/article/concerned-citizens-commission-an-enquiry-into-mumbais-floods-2005/

http://cat.org.in/index.php/site/article/concerned-citizens-commission-an-enquiry-into-mumbais-floods-2005/

McGranahan GPJ, Songsore J, Surjadi C, Kjellen M (2001) The citizen at risk. Earthscan, LondonMills E (2005) Insurance in a climate of change. Science 309:1040–1046Mitchell JK (1999) Crucibles of hazard: Mega-cities and disasters in transition. United Nations University

Press, TokyoMitchell JK (2005) Urban disasters as indicators of global environmental change: Assessing functional

varieties of urban vulnerability. In: System E (ed) Science in the anthropocene. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,pp 132–152

MMRDA (1996) Mumbai Regional Plan Document MMRDAMMRDA (1998) Mumbai disaster management plan. MMRDA, MumbaiMuller M (2007) Adapting to climate change: water management for urban resilience. Environ Urban 19:99–

113Neekhra V (2008) Growing vulnerability crisis “ Will slums ever reduce or improve?”. In: Kidokoro T, Okata

J, Matasumura S, Shima N (eds) Vulnerable cities: Realities, innovations and strategies. Springer, Tokyo,pp 77–104

O’Hare G, Abbott D, Barke M (1998) A review of slum housing policies in Mumbai. Cities 15:269–283Pacific Disaster Center (2005) Metropolitan Manila, The Philippines disaster risk management profile.

Pacific Disaster Center and Earthquake and Megacities InitiativesPacific Disaster Center (2006) Dhaka, Bangladesh Disaster Risk Manangement Profile. Pacific Disaster

Center and Earthquake and Megacities InitiativesPearce L (2003) Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: how to achieve

sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 28:211–228Pelling M (2003) The vulnerability of cities- natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscan, LondonPlanning Commission I (1951) First five year plan. Government of India, New DelhiPryer JA (2003) Poverty and vulnerability in Dhaka slums: The urban livelihoods study. Ashgate UKQuarantelli EL (2001) Urban vulnerability to disasters in developing countries: managing risks. In Disaster

Research Center, 25. Newark: University of DelawareTyner JA (2000) Global cities and circuits of global labor: the case of Manila, Philippines. Prof Geogr 52:61–

74Uitto JI (1998) The geography of disaster vulnerability in megacities: a theoretical framework. Appl Geogr

18:7–16UN - Habitat (2006) State of the World’s Cities Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements ProgrammeWaley P (2005) The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social resilience. Geogr J 171:190–191Wang J-a, Shi P-j, Yi X-s, Jia H-c, Zhu L-y (2008) The Regionalization of Urban disasters in China. Natural

Hazards 44:169–179Wenzel FFB, Bendimerad F, Sinha R (2007) Megacities-megarisks. Nat Hazards 42:481–491Winayanti L, Lang HC (2004) Provision of urban services in an informal settlement: a case study of

Kampung Penas Tanggul, Jakarta. Habitat Int 28:41–65Wisner B (1998) Marginality and vulnerability: why the homeless of Tokyo don’t ‘count’ in

disaster preparations. Appl Geogr 18:25–33Wisner B (2002) Disaster risk reduction in megacities: Making the most of human and social capital. In:

Kreimier A, Arnold M, Carlin A (eds) Building safer cities. World Bank, Washington DCWisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters.

Routledge, New YorkYucemen MS (2005) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake insurance rates for Turkey. Nat Hazards 35:291–

313


Slum dwellers response to flooding events in the megacities of India · 2011-05-26 · housing at...

Documents

Transcript of Slum dwellers response to flooding events in the megacities of India · 2011-05-26 · housing at...