GCOE –HSE Program, Kyoto University

Integrated Disaster Risks Management for
Megacity Mumbai
Suhajyoti Samaddar

Bijay Anand Misra

Disaster Prevention Research InstituteKyoto University
Kyoto, Japansamaddar@imdr.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp

GCOE-HSE Project, Mumbai Base
Kyoto University
Mumbai, India
bijayanand.misra@gmail.com

Roshni Chatterjee

Hirokazu Tatano

GCOE-HSE Project, Mumbai Base
Kyoto University
Mumbai, India
roshni.rc@gmail.com

Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto
University
Kyoto, Japantatano@imdr.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp
10Economic losses and insured losses with
trend

Source: Munich RE. 2005

11

Disasters in Asia，2007

12

Source: Munich Re, 2008

Trend of Natural Disaster in the world• Larger catastrophic disaster is more likely tooccur.
– Number of Disaster for which some international aid
is executed.
– 60s：90s=1:3• Economic losses increased in high rate
– 60s：90s= 1:9• Insured losses increased in higher rate
– Anti-catastrophe insurance available in high-income
countries– 60s：90s =1：16
13

What is happening?
• Increase in exposure :Population and assets areconcentrating to hazardous area

• Vulnerability : Population andassets have not enoughresistance against natural hazards
14

IDRiM- Building up its architecture

We are not DOING enoughAnd not at the most challenging scenarios – the HOT SPOTS
Hence,
Much of our knowledge remains isolated NOT integrated
Much of our technology remains inadequately tested OR untested.

Result,Over promise and under achieve
We do not win hearts and minds over disaster reduction
15
deliveries.

IDRiM
Everybody’s concern- risks engulf us all and hazards
and disasters impact all
How do we move from CONCEPT TO REALITY
From lab to evidence based practice & to finduseful& transferable technologies
From ideas to implementation
Learning through doing & develop successmodels16

What We know

Apply
What they need
17

PURPOSE OF HOT SPOTSIN
BUILDING IDRiM ARCHITECTURE

Hot Spots present most challenging scenarios but also
opportunities to innovate and generate new ideas. Fromtechnology only solutions to Social solutions & better
Management solutions.
Hot Spots urge us to be sensitive to human values andemphasize the human face of technology.
Hot Spots provide opportunities to work and learn together
with the stakeholders and on-the –ground feed back.
Hot Spots help to observe disaster reduction structures as
those emerge and function under stressful conditions.

18

The Process of“Knowing the People”

19Damage / Loss

Susceptibility
Indicator
1.

Language

1.

Death

2

Religion2

No. of Injured

3

Education

3

4

Occupation

HealthProblem

5

Income1.

Job loss

6

Household Size

2

7

Native Place

Total
estimatedloss

8Period of staying

1.

Damage tofood

2Damage todurableassets3

Damage tocloths4

Damage tobuilding

5

Damage to
Raw materials

1.

Water Supply

2

Sanitation Facility

1.

Building Height2

Building Structure

Exposure
1.
2

3

Level of
Water
Duration of
Water inhouse
Duration ofwater outside
the house

20Dharavi
21

Selected Hotspots at Dharavi

Mithi River

Rajiv
Gandhi
Nagar

Premnagar

Parsi-Chawl

22

Premnagar
Population : 5000 to 7000
( Approximate )Age of the settlement : 25 - 30
Years approximately
Settlement Features :• Situated on the bank of Mithi river.

• The land was used to be a marshy
land occupied by mangrove forest• The settlement is situated 3 to 4
feet below from road level• One of the most severely affected
settlements of 2005 Mumbai floodand prone to local flood every year
23Premnagar•Education: 23 % illiterates, 19 % can only write their names•Income structure: Average income is Rs 4647 and 76 %people earn less than Rs 5000 per month.
•Religion: 61 % people are Hindus and the rest 39 %people are Muslims•Mother Tongue: 94 % people are Hindi speaking•Household size: Average household size is 6
•51 % of households have 1 working member•Average period of stay: 23 years•Migration Status: Majority of people are immigrants from
Uttar Pradesh; it is likely that the major reason for
immigration is better job opportunities.
24

Parshi-Chawl
Population : 1500 (300households) approximately
Landuse : Mainly residential
Age of settlement : Around50 years or more
Settlement Features :• Situated 3 to 4 feet below
the road level• Severe flood on 2005 andpresence of water logging or
local flood in every year
• Settlement is much clean
and environmentally much
25
better to stay

Parshi Chawl•Education: 9.4 % illiterates, 3.4 % can only write their names•Income structure: Average income is Rs 5122 and 58 %people earn less than Rs 5000 per month.

•Religion: 97 % people are Hindus•Mother Tongue: 78 % people are Marathi speaking•Household size: Average household size is 5
•57 % of households have 1 working member•Average period of stay: 33 years•Migration Status: Majority of people are immigrants majorly
from different parts of Maharashtra, Mumbai and also from
Uttar Pradesh; it is likely that the major reason for immigration
is better job opportunities or change of place for women after
marriage.

26

Rajiv Gandhi Nagar
Population : 10000
Age of Settlement : 15 Years
Landuse : Mainly residential

Settlement Characteristics :• Developed in the verge of Mithi
river bed which was previously amarshy land bound by mangrove
forest• Most recently developed in
Dharavi Slum area

• Prone to Flood ( water loggings
27
for few hours are also observed)

Rajiv Gandhi Nagar
Education: 38 % illiterates, 4.4 % can only write their names•Income structure: Average income is Rs 4348 and 80 %people earn less than Rs 5000 per month.
•Religion: 73 % people are Hindus and 17 % are Muslims•Mother Tongue: Majorly Hindi and Kannad and also Marathi•Household size: Average household size is 5

•80 % of households have 1 working member•Average period of stay: 15 years•Migration Status: Majority of people are immigrants majorly
from Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh; it is likely that the major
reason for immigration is better job opportunities.

28

MAGNITUDE & IMPACT
OF FLOOD
29

Flood levels

30

Duration of Flood : 2005
Premnagar

Parsi-Chawl Rajiv Gandhi Nagar

Duration of Flood inside the house ( in Hours )
Mean

31.27

35.99

42

Duration of flood water outside the house ( surrounding streets)
Mean

37.43

45.60

47.55

Maximum

96

96

120

31

Impact of Flood : 2005

Premnagar

Parsi-Chawl Rajib Gandhi Nagar

Impact of Flood (No. of persons)No. of Death00.00990.0048

No. of Injured

1

0.00490.024

No. affected bydisease2

1

1% of water-borne
disease60.1 %

40.4 %

55.8 %

32

Extent of damage in terms of money

33

This is based on the survey of 184 to 208 households

Damage / Loss

Susceptibility
Indicator
1.

Language

1.

Death

2

Religion2

No. of Injured

3

Education

3

4

Occupation

HealthProblem

5

Income1.

Job loss

6

Household Size

2

7

Native Place

Total
estimatedloss

8Period of staying

1.

Damage tofood

2Damage todurableassets3

Damage tocloths4

Damage tobuilding

5

Damage to
Raw materials

1.

Water Supply

2

Sanitation Facility

1.

Building Height2

Building Structure

Exposure
1.
2

3

Level of
Water
Duration of
Water inhouse
Duration ofwater outside
the house

34Factors contributing flood
vulnerability (Regression Analysis)• Parshi Chawl : Income, level of water ,occupation• Rajiv Gandhi Nagar : Period of staying,
Education, Language (linguistic group),
Native place, Level of water• Premnagar : Occupation, Duration of
Water inside the house, Education ,Income, level of water35

Will you leave to another place incase of big flood
NO36

“Flood will come and go ,but if our property goes ,it will not come”“We are brave, and abrave person must face
the reality ”“Who will give us bread andbutter ? We left our native to37
secure our food ”

Livelihood
Risks /
Background Risks

Mumbai Slum

Relocation or Flood Risks
Reduction Measures

Survival

Native Place( UP/ BIHAR)
Flood Risks
Livelihood Risks
38

Vulnerability

Physical
Event

DisasterSocialVulnerabil-ity

Requires largely technologicalsolutions•Manifested in quality of
infrastructure,
economy,environmental stability, whicharealways determined byhuman interaction and behavior•Non-structural solutions like
Capacity building, reduction ofsocial vulnerability in society
39Factors for Measuring
Vulnerability PatternFigure: Conceptual framework of household vulnerability elements

40

Indicators and variables of Household Profile

Indicator

Variable
Religion
Mother Tongue

Socio-economic
Characteristics

Native Place( The place from where the head of the household actually
migrated)
Period of Staying
Education( Education level of the head of the household)Income(Income of the head of the household )Housing Type

Housing
Characteristics(Types of building materials )Building heightSource of water supply

Infrastructure

Duration of receiving water
Sanitation Facility

41

Revealed Characteristics of Clusters
HouseholdCharacteristics

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Religion

Hindus & Muslims uniformly
distributed

Predominantly Hindus

Education(not much variation withcluster 2)(not much variation withcluster 1)

IncomeMore income

Less income

Household Size

LargerSmaller

Period of Stay

newer to the placeolder migrants

Building Height

Most of the higher
storey structuresconcentrated here,

Predominantly groundstorey buildings

Building Structure

Mostly pucca
structures

Mostly semi-pucca
structures42

• Household characteristics - two types ofclusters can be observed

Cluster 1• More Prosperous, Heterogeneousand Multi cultural = Prosperous

Cluster 2• Relatively weak andhomogeneous = Puny

43

Indicators and variables of“Physical Condition of The Site And
House”
Indicator

Variable
Level of flood water inside the house(in feet)

Extent and magnitude offlood

Duration of flood water inside the house

Duration of flood water outside thehousing or immediate surrounding
areasOf The Site And House are self reported.
Note : All the variables of Physical Condition
44

Results And Discussion• Premnagar Community is divided into two clusters basedon physical condition of the site and house

Cluster 1• More Flood Prone

Cluster 2• Less Flood Prone
45

Vulnerability Level / Pattern (Damage / Loss) ??
Household Profile

Conditionof the site
and the
site

Rich

Poor

High Flood ??
Prone
Low Flood ??
Prone

??
??

46

Vulnerability Level
Damage / Loss
1) Total Monitory Loss
2) Damage to Cloths
3) Damage to Food
4) Damage to Household durable assets5) Damage to building materials

47

Observed Vulnerability Pattern• “Two way ANOVA” was performed to examine thevulnerability pattern of Premnagar, considering two
factors: Household Profile Physical Condition Of The Site And House48

Damage of theprosperous people ismuch higher than theless prosperous people
irrespective of physicalconditions of the houseand the site.

Estimated Average Loss in Rupees

Estimated Average Loss in Rupees

Figure: Estimated Marginal Means of Total Estimated Loss (Self Reported)49

Damage to Foodless prosperous people/ poor
reported higher loss

Damage to Cloths

Households who are high prone
to flood is more vulnerable
irrespective of their household
profile background50

Damage to Durable assets

Damage to Building/House

Both factors influence thevulnerability
51

Conclusions• Prosperous people have more money loss than poor
irrespective of the level/exposure of flood• Poor People have more damage to food stored in housethan prosperous group irrespective of their level of hazard.

• Household of high flood prone category reported more
loss to clothes than low flood prone categoryirrespective of their household profile.

52

Conclusions• Combined impact of household profile and physicalcondition of the house and the site is observed in all
kinds of damage, but no particular pattern of common
impact on vulnerability has emerged.

53

Working with the People

54

Communities are
Primary Victims

Affected
Communities FirstTo Respond To
Emergencies

Direct / First Hand
Experience
Revealed

Local Perceptions& Priorities are
known

Easier To Know
People’s Coping
Strategies,
Adaptation

Easier To Assess
Their Needs &Analyze Problems

Use of Local /Indigenous
Knowledge

Easier Acceptabilityof Projects &working collectively
55Physical Features
Slope
Land Cover
Soil Type
Proximity to Waterbody
Built Environment
Building Age
Building Height
Building Materials
Building Condition
Plinth Level
Built-up Area
F.A.R.

 Landuse
Evolution of Existing Land
Use
Existing Landuse
Non-conforming Landuse
Housing Density
Critical Infrastructure
Width & type of Road
Water Supply lines layout
Sanitation especially solid
waste dumps
Open Drain layout56• Flood Duration• Water Level during Flood• Velocity of water flow
• Frequency of Flood• Flood water mix with debris, wastes andchemicals.

57

Micro Hotspot @ Dharavi
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar

Mithi River58

Dharavi Redevelopment Authority (DRA) divided entier Dhravi into 5
sectors. Each sector consists of several clusters.
The case study area, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, belongs to the sector V and it
is comprised of 5 clusters including cluster A, B, C, D, E
59Rajiv Gandhi Nagar

60

Rajib Gandhi Nagar

Mithi River61

Rajiv Gandhi Nagar
Population : 20,000 ( Approximate)
Area : 100 sq.m
Age of the Settlement : 25 – 30 Years

Landuse : Mainly residential
Settlement Characteristics :• Located on a site which previously wasa marshy land with mangrove forest in
the flood plain of the Mithi River.

• Most recently developed portion of
Dharavi Slum area
• The area was very severely affectedby the 2005 flood disaster and becauseof the low lying terrain the area
experiences water logging or local flood
every year.

62

Applied Tools /Techniques• Mapping• Open ended interview with
key informants• Group discussion• Town watching• Observation• Photography
Observation Technique• Secondary data collection
techniques/ methods( Example : Content
analysis )63Open Ended Interview

Group Discussion

64

A sheet of landuse survey Map

65

Participating Stakeholders/ Agency
Participating
Stakeholders
GCOE Research Team( including surveyors)
Local Community Members

Level of Participation
Highly Active

MCGM (Field Officers)
Political/ Religious
Organization

Less Active66

Roles and Involvement of Stakeholders
Stakeholders

Roles/ Activities

GCOE_HSE
Research Team

• Mapping• Key Surveyors• Explaining and introducing community the role andobjectives of the survey• Co-ordination between different stakeholders

Local Community• Key Informant ( flood , exiting socio-economic
conditions, settlement characteristics)

MCGM ( Field
Officials )• Worked as a facilitator• Introducing GCOE research team to the area
• Source of information ( flood , exiting socio-economic
conditions, settlement characteristics)• Providing secondary information

Religious / Political
Organization• Key Informants• Introducing and supporting the research team(including surveyors) with the area and people

67Scope of Survey ( Risk mapping – 1stPhase/ Stage)
LANDUSEINFRASTRUCTURE

Residential

Religious Structures

Commercial

Doctor’s Clinic

Industrial

Community Toilet

Public / Semi-Public

Community Tap

Playground / Parks

School / Balwadi

Water bodies / Ponds

Burial Ground

Roads

Drains / Nallas
Waste Dumping Site
Water Pipe LineHigh Tension Lines
68

1.Hazard Parameters
Flood Duration
Water Level During FloodAreas Frequently Affected During Flood
2.Built Environment

CATEGORY

CODES

Building Height

G, G+1, G+2, G+3…

Building Materials

Pa, Sp, Sp

Building Condition
Plinth Level

In Feet69

Building Materials

Pa. Pucca: All RCC
Sp. Semi-Pucca: Structure made of both permanent (RCC) andtemporary (mud, tin) materials
Ka. Kuchcha: Walls, Roof and Floor made of temporary materials
like mud, tin, asbestos

Note down the following information in the map:

1.Width of Roads
2.Name of Roads / Gali Number
3.Name of Neighborhood (if any)
4.Areas of Mixed Landuse (Residential + Commercial / Industrial)
5.Any particular building category not enlisted above
6.Spot Height (Take the Road as Reference Point)70

Steps of 1st Phase (Stakeholders Identification & Basemap Preparation)of Participatory Risk Mapping , Rajiv Gandhi Nagar
Steps

Activities

Stakeholder
participation

Step – I

Area identification/selection

GCOE – HSE
Mumbai; MCGM

Step – II

Stakeholder identification

GCOE – HSE
Mumbai , MCGM

Step – IIIInformation collection from secondary
sources ( Exam. map, drainage network,
demographic data )GCOE – HSE
Mumbai

Step – IV

Rapport building with stakeholders

GCOE – HSE
Mumbai with otherstakeholders

Step – V

Fixing time and methods of risk mapping

GCOE-HSE Mumbai,
71
MCGM

StepsActivities

Stakeholder
participation

Step – VI

Town watching and area
appraisal (observation andexchanging dialogue)(including identification oflandmarks and boundary of
the area)

GCOE-HSE Mumbai,
Local Political
Organization, MCGM,

Step – VII

Landuse mapping , buildinguse, risk identification andmapping, resource
identification etc by
exploiting observation, group
discussion, face to face open
ended interview etc.

GCOE – HSE Mumbai ,Local Community

72

StepsActivities

Stakeholder
participation

Step – VIII

Translating data/ map info
from paper to electroniccopy

GCOE-HSE Mumbai,

Step – IX

Data analysis andpreparation of base map
including landuse, building
Yet risks
to be done
use, flood
Reporting the result anddeveloped map to all
stakeholders including local
community, MCGM, local
religious organization

GCOE – HSE Mumbai ,Step – X

Step – XI

GCOE-HSE Mumbai,
Local Community,
Political/ Religiousorganization, MCGM

GCOE –HSE Map
Feedback from thestakeholders and revision ofdeveloped base map

73Fact Findings

We have just finished the survey or more to say it is stillgoing on, so the digitization of map and transferring data
into electric file have not been completed yet. The findings
mentioned here are some general observation

74Origin and Growth of the settlement75

Growth oftheSettlement

1980
1990
1985
The entire area wasa marshy landabounded bymangrove forest on
the bank Mithi“Rajiv Gandhi
River

Nagar”@ 201176

Those who came early were able to settle down
close the road, whereas a relatively late comers
were forced to encroach areas close to the riverand set up their houses. Closer to the river, higher
is the flood risk

7 Feet Raod

1 FootMSL

Mithi River77

Landuse and Built Environment
2011
2006

Residential

Commercial

Landuse has notchanged much after
the flood, only theroadside plots changed
to commercial use.
78A significant number ofresidential structures turned
into G+ 1 structure after theflood.
Semi – concrete structures
turned into concrete structures
Community reported a bulk number of thembuilt G+ 1 structure after the flood inorder to avoid flood risks
G + 1 construction is illegal in Rajiv Gandhi
Nagar

79

Infrastructure

80

Water SupplyPipe water supply in form of free public
taps and private supply with cost was
introduced by BMC in 2009 to parts ofthe community.
In areas where people do not yet havepipe water supply people buy water from
BMC water tanker ( INR 200/ month) One public water-tap is shared by 4 to
5 households

 Water supply is for 5 to 6 hours in themorning .
 Those who could not pay or afford thewater pipeline installation cost, normallyborrow water from those who have 81
private water pipe line and in return pay

82Electricity supply is
now in thecommunity.

83 Access streets are narrow( average width 2 to 3 feet ) A large number of streets areraised ( 1 to 2 feet ) by the
inhabitants after the 2005 flood
disaster to keep out flood water.

84

85

Flood @ 2005

86

Flood @ 2005

8 Feet2 feetMSL

Raod

Mithi River

87

Common Reasons for Not Early
Evacuation during 2005 Flood( Hierarchical order )• Flood was unpredictable: Community thought flood water would
flash back as the tide flow.
• No early warning by mass media / local Govt./ Non-Govt.
organization and no planning for evacuation.
• The head of the household (male member) was outside thehouse and could not came back to house during flood as theroads were blocked. In the absence of male members, the family
members could not decide whether they will evacuate or not.
• It was too late to evacuate when they decided to evacuate as
the roads were already submerged and unusable.
• Fear of loosing property• No knowledge with the people where to evacuate to and ofcourse the least risky route of evacuation.
• Within short time the entire area was submerged, shelter at88
only roof tops or on to the road at higher level than flood..

Nature of Evacuation• Majority of them evacuated to the nearby
roadside or railway station at the last moment
when flood water already reached 3 feetheight• A few stayed on their own house (on theroof ) as because when they decided toevacuate it was impossible to evacuate as
roads were already submerged.
• A very few went to their upper floor orneighbors’ house having upper floor (G+ 1
Structure)89

Before Flood90

After Flood

91

92

93

Recently MCGM (Local Municipal Govt. ), demolished 7 to 8 buildings built
on the highly risky river bank . Despite the 2005 disaster infiltration andencroachment is still going on at the high risk river bank.
94

The Outcome of 1st Phase
Participatory Risk Mapping
•

•
•
•
•

Developing base map & documenting base information(Objective Findings) – Knowing the process of developing andupdating base information (spatial risk nature andcharacteristics) by involving various stakeholders, particularly
the local participants
Reducing data gap
Built up network and interaction between stakeholders
Creating and building platform for implementation ofIntegrated Community Action Plan ( Example. Yomenkaigi
System)Strengthening the process of stakeholder selection forpracticing participatory risk mapping and action plan95

Coping Capacity Process( Mental Model)

Self Efficacy

Risk
Perception

Intention

Preventive
behavior
Adoption

Response Efficacy
96

Model to explain behavioral intention and the role or influence of Self – Efficacy

1st Stage/ Phase Risk
Typefication
Perceived Probability ofHazardPerceived Severity ofHazard2 Stage/ Phase
Response

Last Stage/ Phase Last
Mile Action
Money

Outcome Expectancy(Negative/Positive)

Time
Power

Self Efficacy (Positive /Negative)

Trust

Fear / Anxiety

Intention

Plan

Risk Priority
Community
Participation
Past Experience
Level of AwarenessKnowledge /Information

Knowledge /Information

Past Experience

Level of AwarenessSocial Acceptance/
Approval

Social Acceptance/
Approval

97

Major findings from Parshi Chawl ( N= 40)(Structural Equation Modelling)
1)
2)
3)
4)

High Outcome Expectancy + Low self efficacy = Fatalist(Low intention )High risk perception + low self efficacy = Fatalist (Lowintention)
High Risk perception + high self efficacy = Higher Intention
High response efficacy + high self efficacy = Higher Intention

98

THANK YOU
99