DRAFT
Delhi

District Profile
Climate and Disaster ResilienceCentralNorth
SouthSouth WestNew DelhiInternational Environment andDisaster Management Laboratory
Graduate School of Global Environmental
Studies
KYOTO UNIVERSITY
Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto
606-8501, JAPANhttp://www.iedm.ges.kyoto-u.ac.jp/

Sustainable Environment andEcological Development Society (SEEDS)
15/A Institutional Area
R.K. Puram, Sector IV
New Delhi – 110-022
India
http://www.seedsindia.org

Printed in 2010

East
North East
North WestWest

About the Initiative

About the Organization

The Climate and Disaster Resilience Initiative (CDRI) is an umbrella initiative of Kyoto University, funded by
the Global Center of Excellence (GCOE) Program “Human Security Engineering for Asian Megacities,” which has
research, education, training, and implementation components. This program was well supported by SEEDS,
India; and Disaster Management Authority, Delhi. The support and contribution from all nine districts of Delhi
is well appreciated.

Team Members

Kyoto University
IEDM Laboratory of Kyoto University Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies targets to reduce thegap between knowledge and practice through pro-active field level, community based project implementation in
the field of environment and disaster risk management. Key research areas are: climate change adaptation,
urban risk reduction, environment and disaster education.
GCOE program of Kyoto University targets education and research excellence on Human Security Engineeringin Asian Megacities, with focus to city governance, infrastructure management, health risk management anddisaster risk management.

Kyoto University
Rajib Shaw
Yukiko Takeuchi
Sunil Kumar Prashar

Sustainable Environment andEcological Development Society (SEEDS), India

Seeds

SEEDS is a non profit voluntary organization founded in 1994. It aims to build resilient communities. The
organization uses multi hazard, locally based approach to empower the community through awareness, training
and education. It works on six thematic areas: community based disaster management, school safety, climatechange, safety construction practices, open learning, and international co-operation.

Manu Gupta
Anshu Sharma
Shivangi Chavada

Contact Details
Rajib Shaw

Associate Professor
International Environment andDisaster Management Laboratory
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies
KYOTO UNIVERSITY
Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501,
JAPAN
Telefax: +81-75-753-5708
shaw@global.mbox.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp
http://www.iedm.ges.kyoto-u.ac.jp/

Design and Layout
Takayuki Moriyama
Kanae Aoki

Manu Gupta

Executive Director
Sustainable Environment and Ecological
Development Society (SEEDS)
15/A Institutional Area R.K. Puram,
Sector IV, New Delhi – 110-022 (India)
Tel: +91-11-2617-4272
Fax: + 91-11-2617-4572
Email: manu@seedsindia.org
Web: www.seedsindia.org

Introduction
Urban areas are experiencing higher risks due toclimate change. The risk is expected to increase
not only due to the frequency and intensity ofclimate related hazards but also due to rapid
urbanization. Currently, the growth of urban areas
is very fast. It is predicted that in 2030, two outof three people will live in urban areas. The shareof the world's population living in urban centers
has increased from 39% in 1980 to 48% in 2000.
The urbanization level has almost stabilized indeveloped countries. African and Asian countries
are in the process of urbanization. Past disaster
trends show that Asian cities with higher population
density experience high mortality and economic loss
in disaster events.
The impacts of climate change bring change in theintensity and frequency of climate related hazards
which result to loss of urban infrastructure and lifeand further decreases the coping capacity of theurban community. The urban poor are among themost vulnerable groups when disaster strikes.

In Delhi, urbanization is creating enormous pressure
on the infrastructure facilities and services leading
to environment degradation. It is among theworld’s cities with more than a million population.
The urban population of Delhi in 1951 was about
1.8 million which increased to over 12 million
in 2001. According to the 2001 Census, 93 %of Delhi’s population lives in urban areas. The
city has seen a massive growth of slums due toextensive urbanization which is often followed bymisery, poverty, unemployment, exploitation, andpoor quality of life. The increased urbanization also
contributed to the depletion of the city’s land andwater resources. The city ground water level isdecreasing by 2 meters every year. Furthermore, thecity is vulnerable to climate related hazards. In thepast few decades, the city has to deal with climate
related disasters like floods, heat waves and water
scarcity. The impact of climate related disasters hascreated huge loss to life and infrastructure.

Concept of Resilience
The concept of resilience is applied to urban
areas. The concept comprises the capacity of thecommunity to absorb the stress, to manage it,
and to recover from it. In this study stress means
climate change and associated disasters which arehydro-metrological in nature and community implies
urban poor communities. Building cities’ resilience
to climate related disasters demand assessmentof their disaster risk. The study aims at evaluating
disaster risk through Climate Disaster ResilienceIndex (CDRI) approach. The CDRI assesses disasterrisk through five different dimensions. They are:physical, social, economic, institutional, and natural.
In this study, the focus is on micro level. The
assessment is done in all nine districts of Delhi.
They are: Central Delhi, North Delhi, South Delhi,
East Delhi, North East Delhi, South West Delhi, New
Delhi, North West Delhi, and West Delhi.

1Methodology
The study is based on a questionnaire covering
five dimensions (See below) in which every
dimension consists of another five parameters
defining in more detail. Each of the fiveparameters is then again represented by anotherfive variables. Accordingly, 125 variables define
the overall resilience of a city (see table 1
for content of questionnaire). Using a simple
arithmetic function named weighted mean scoresfor variables, parameters, and dimensions arecalculated.

Results: The following pages show the results foreach of the 9 districts in the form of a detailed
report and maps (spiders) providing a visual idea
about the current condition of a particular district.
A graphic line crossing the line of dimension/
parameter closer to 1 means the city has low
resilience in this aspect. A result approaching thescore of 5 is showing high resilience.

DIMENSIONS PARAMETERS AND VARIABLES
Electricity (access, availability, supply capacity, alternative capacity)
Water (access, availability, supply capacity, alternative capacity)
Sanitation and solid waste disposal (access to sanitation, collection of waste: treated, recycled, collection of solid waste after adisaster)PhysicalAccessibility of roads (% of land transportation network, paved roads, accessibility during ﬂooding, status of interruption after intense
rainfall, roadside covered drain)
Housing and land-use (building codes, building with non-permanent structures, building above water logging, ownership, population
living in proximity to polluted industries)
Population (annual growth rate, population under 14 and above 65, population of informal settlers, population density)
Health (population suffering from waterborne/vector-borne diseases, access to health facilities, functionality and capacity of healthfacilities, capacity of health facility during a disaster)
Education and awareness (literacy rate, awareness of disasters, availability of public awareness programs/disaster drills, access to theInternet, functionality of schools after disasters)
SocialSocial Capital (participation in community activities and clubs, acceptance level of community leader (in district), ability of communities tobuild consensus and to participate in city’s decision-making process, mixing and interlinking of social classes)
Community preparedness during a disaster (preparedness in terms of logistics, materials, and management; participation in relief
works; provision of shelter for affected people; support from NGOs/CBOs; population evacuating voluntarily)
Income (population below poverty line, number of income sources per household, income derived in informal sector, % of households
have reduced income due to a disaster)
Employment (unemployment in formal sector, youth unemployment, women employment, workers coming from outside the city; childlabour in district)
Household assets (households with television or radio, phone, motorized vehicle, non-motorized vehicle, basic furniture)
Economic
Finance and savings (availability of credit facility to prevent disasters, accessibility to credits, accessibility of credit facility to urban poor,savings of households, household’s insured properties)
Budget and subsidy (funding of DRM, budget for DRR sufﬁcient, availability of subsidies/incentives for residents to rebuild houses,
alternative livelihood, health care after a disaster)
Mainstreaming of DRR and CCA (mainstreaming of CCA and DRR in: district’s development plans, ability (manpower) and capacity(technical ) to produce development plans, extent of community participation in development plan prepairedness process, implementationof disaster management plan)
Effectiveness of district’s crisis management framework (existence and effectiveness of an emergency team during a disaster:leadership, availability of evacuation centres, efﬁciency of trained emergency workers during a disaster, existence of alternative decision
making personnel)
Knowledge dissemination and Management (effectiveness to learn from previous disasters, availability of disaster training programmes
for emergency workers, existence of disaster awareness programmes for community, capacity (books, leaﬂets, etc) to disseminate
Institutional
disaster awareness programmes (disaster education), extent of community satisfaction from disaster awareness programmes)
Institutional collaboration with other organisations and stakeholders, during a disaster (district dependence on external institutions,collaboration and interconnectedness with neighbor districts, district’s cooperation (support) with central cooperation department for
emergency management, cooperation district ofﬁcials for emergency management, district’s institutional collaboration with NGOs andprivate organisations)
Good governance (effectiveness of early warning systems, existence of disaster drills, promptness of district body to disseminate
emergency information during disaster to community and transparency of district body to disseminate accurate emergency, capability of
district body to lead recovery process)Intensity/severity of natural hazards (ﬂoods, cyclones, heat waves, drought (water scarcity), tornados)
Frequency of natural hazards (ﬂoods, cyclones, heat waves, drought (water scarcity), tornados)
Ecosystem services (quality of city’s: biodiversity, soils, air, water bodies, urban salinity)
Land-use in natural terms (area vulnerable to climate-related hazards, urban morphology, settlements in hazard-prone areas, amount of
Naturalurban green space, loss of urban green space in last 50 years)
Environmental policies and security ( use of district level hazard maps in development activities, extent of environmental conservation
regulations reﬂected in development plans, extent of implementation of environmental conservation policies, implementation of efﬁcientwaste management system (RRR), implementation of mitigation policies to reduce air pollution)
Table 1: Parameters (bold) and variables of CDRI

2

Overall District ProﬁleOverall Resilience
N
NW

N
NE

W

C
New
Delhi

E

SW

Less than 3.0S

3.0 - 3.5
3.5 - 4.0
> More than 4.0

The overall resilience of nine districts is assessedusing the overall resilience score of each district.
New Delhi is the most resilient district in Delhi.
The factors responsible for high resilience scoreare physical, social and economic. The physicalresilience is high due mainly to better electricity,water and sanitation services. The district has its
own Municipal body (i.e. NDMC) that manages civic
services in the district. The main factors responsible
for high social resilience are population, health andsocial capital. The district population is least among
all nine districts and density is below 5000 personper. sq. km. The health condition is better due tobetter hygienic environment conditions and healthfacilities. The social capital is very high due mainly
to existing Residential and Welfare Associations(RWAs). The main economic factors responsible
for high resilience are: income, employment andhousehold assets. The residential area in this
district include large bungalows, foreign mission/state guest houses, government colonies and privatecolonies. The income level is high due to type ofjobs.
East district is the least resilient among all nine
districts. The most prominent factors responsible
for low resilience are: physical and natural factors.

The district has low physical resilience mainly
due to poor solid waste management, housing
and land use, and water. Due to high population
density, the district produces a large amount ofsolid waste, which is not often properly disposed ofregularly. The housing condition is very poor mainly
because a large number of the population lives in
the proximity of polluted industries and dumping
grounds. Moreover, housing with ownership is not
much. The plinth level of houses is low. A large
residential area situated along the Yamuna riverbank is below normal flooding level. The conditionof water is also very poor. More than 60% of the
district is affected by interruptions in water supply.
The other reason for low resilience is natural factor.
Due to proximity to the Yamuna River, the districtis vulnerable to flooding. In the recent past, thedistrict was affected by heavy flood. The ecosystemservices are very poor. More than 90% of the
district area is densely populated. A large numberof small scale industries related to service andindustrial sectors is located inside the district. Thereis no open space left. The land use in natural terms
is very poor. The built area is more than 90% of
the total area of the district mainly characterized bya dense populated area.
Central Delhi
North Delhi

PhysicalPhysical5

Natural

5

4

4

3

3

2

SocialNatural1Institutional

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

Social1

Economic

Overall2South Delhi

Institutional

Economic

All Districts
3Physical Resilience
N
NW

N
NE

W

C
New
Delhi

E

SW

Less than 3.0S

3.0 - 3.5
3.5 - 4.0
> More than 4.0

The physical resilience of nine districts is assessedon the basis of five variables including electricity;water; sanitation and solid waste disposal; andhousing and land use. The physical resilience showsthat New Delhi district is the most resilient among
all nine districts, whereas East Delhi district is theleast resilience district. The main reasons for very
low resilience are poor sanitation and solid waste
disposal, low level of housing and land use, andwater. The district produces a huge amount of solid
waste every day. Approximately 463 tons of solid
waste is produced every day out of which 299.36
is disposed of properly. Moreover, the district
has many small-scale to large industries which
regularly produce a huge amount of solid waste.
The high population of the district is also a major
factor for huge solid waste generation which is notcollected completely and recycled. The district isalso characterized by poor housing and land use.
A large number of informal settlements are locatedwithin the marginal embankments of the river bed.
Most of the houses are without ownership. The
district is also affected by water scarcity. Almost 80% of district area suffers from interruption in watersupply. Therefore, all the above mentioned factors
make this district less resilient in the physicaldimension.
On the other hand, electricity, water andaccessibility to roads are the three importantfactors that make New Delhi the most resilient
district. The district has a separate municipal body,which manages civic services. The interruption inwater and electricity is very less in comparison toother districts. The condition of roads is better thanother districts. The district roads are broad andaccessible during normal flooding. All roads haveroadside covered drain. Entire district has pave
roads. The district is where the parliament house,
Supreme Court, central government ministries, Delhi
high court, and union service public commission arelocated. Therefore, the roads are very broad in this
district. The other factors that make this district
most resilient are better solid waste disposal facility
and proper housing and land use.
Central Delhi
North Delhi

Electricity
53
2

East Delhi
North East Delhi

5

4

Housingand Land-Use

South Delhi

Electricity

South West Delhi
New Delhi

4

Water

Housingand Land-Use

1

3
2

North West Delhi
West Delhi

Water

Cen

Nor

Sou

Eas

Nor

1

Sou

New

Nor
Accessiblitityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

Overall
4

Accessiblitityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

All Districts

Wes

Social Resilience
N
NW

N
NE

W

C
New
Delhi

E

SW

Less than 3.0S

3.0 - 3.5
3.5 - 4.0
> More than 4.0

The social resilience of nine districts is assessedfrom five variables including population; health;education and awareness; and social capital. Over
all, the resilience level of all nine districts is between
medium to good. However, New Delhi is the mostresilient district among all nine districts. One aspect
which makes this district most resilient is population.
The population density of this district is second
lowest among all districts which is 5117 per. sq. km
in 2001. Similarly, the total population is also lower
than other districts, which is 171806 in 2001. The
annual population growth rate is less than 1% which
also makes this district highly resilient. Moreover,there are other factors that account for highresilience including health, community preparedness,social capital, and education and awareness. The
district has well functional Residential and Welfare
Associations and Market Trader Associations (MTAs).
People participation is also high during meetings.
Proper health services and hygienic environment
make this district highly resilient. Also, the people
suffering from water and vector born diseases every
year are very less.

On the other hand, the North East district is theleast resilient among all districts. The population
density is highest among all nine districts, which
is 29, 468 persons per sq. km. in 2001 (Planning
Department 2009). More over, the annual population
growth rate is also highest among all districts,
which is more than 6% in 2001. The high density
also reflects on health. As a consequence of highdensity of population, the health aspect is between
poor to medium. The other factor which makes this
district least resilient is social capital. There aremany existing Residential and Welfare Association.
However, the participation of the people is not thesame as in New Delhi district. Therefore, population,
health, and social capital are the three mostprominent factors responsible for low resilience of
the North East district.

SocialCentral Delhi
North Delhi

Population

Population

5

Community
Preparedness

5

4

4

3

3

2

HealthCommunity
Preparedness

1

Overall

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

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital2

South Delhi

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

All Districts
5

Economic Resilience
N
NW

N
NE

W

C
New
Delhi

E

SW

Less than 3.0S

3.0 - 3.5
3.5 - 4.0
> More than 4.0

The economic resilience of nine districts isevaluated from five variable factors namely income;
employment; household assets; finance and savings;
and budget and subsidies. The most resilient
district is New Delhi. The main factors responsible
for high resilience level are: income, employment
and household assets. The district is a mix ofcommercial as well as institutional areas where
government offices are situated. Most of thoseliving in this district are engaged in formal jobs.
The income level is high. There is very minimal or
no one living below poverty line. The child laboris low. However, in certain commercial areas, childlabor can be seen. Due to better income, people
are well equipped with household assets. Apart fromthe above factors, the residents in this district are
better off in finance and savings.
Central Delhi is the least resilient district among
all nine districts. The main factors responsible forlow resilience are: income, employment, and financeand savings. Most of the working population in this
district is engaged in household industries. The
working population is 35% of the total population.
The dependency ratio is 1.88. There are certain
areas in this district where dependency ratio is 2.
Many household have only one earner. According
to the 2001 Census, up to 70% of population ofCentral Delhi lives in slums. This also reflects theirincome and employment level. As mentioned earlier,most of them are engaged in household industry
which also affects their earning. Child labor is alsohigh. Unemployment in the formal sector is high.
Poor finance and saving is also an important factor
for low resilience. The accessibility of credit facility
is poor in this district. Houses with insurance arealso very less in this district. All the above factors
contribute to low resilience in this district. The
resilience scores for budget and subsidy is thesame in all nine districts. Equal budget is distributed
among all districts for disaster risk reduction related
activities.
Central Delhi

Economic

North Delhi
South Delhi

Budgetand Subsidy

5

5

4

4

3
2

East Delhi

IncomeIncomeEmployment

Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

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

Employment

No

Sou

Eas

No

1

1

Ce

Sou

Ne

No
Financeand Savings

Household Assets

Overall
6

Household
AssetsFinanceand Savings

All Districts

We

Institutional Resilience
N
NW

N
NE

W

C
New
Delhi

E

SW

Less than 3.0S

3.0 - 3.5
3.5 - 4.0
> More than 4.0

The institutional setup is common for all nine
districts. All districts follow common guidelines
laid down by the National Disaster Management
Authority (NDMA) and Delhi Disaster Management
Authority (DDMA). The resilience level of all
districts is between medium to good. However, themainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and climatechange adaptation is not visible in all nine districts.
The development plan has incorporated disasterrisk reduction poorly in the Master Plan 2021. The
mainstreaming part is poor in all districts. The crisis
management framework is the same in all nine
districts.

local bodies at state level. The early warning system
clearly disseminates all information related todisaster to all nine districts.

All districts use some common platform and tool for
disseminating information on disaster preparedness.
For example, books, leaflets, manpower andcampaign, among others. All districts have the same
collaboration with state organizations, municipal
bodies, and with other districts. The district bodies
are dependent on each other as well as on urban
Central Delhi

Institutional

North Delhi
South Delhi

Mainstreaming

Mainstreaming

5

5

4

Good
Governance3
2

4

CrisisManagement

Good
Governance1

Institutional
Collaboration

Overall32

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

CrisisManagement

1

Knowledge
Disseminationand Management

Institutional
Collaboration

All Districts

Knowledge
Disseminationand Management

7Natural Resilience
N
NW

N
NE

W

C
New
Delhi

E

SW

Less than 3.0S

3.0 - 3.5
3.5 - 4.0
> More than 4.0

New Delhi is the most resilient district in thenatural aspect. The most prominent factors thatare responsible for high resilience are: intensity,
severity and frequency of climate related hazards
and land use. The district is not vulnerable toflood. Moreover, it is less vulnerable to heat wave
and water scarcity. The frequency of heat waves
and water scarcity is once in a year. Land use
is good. There are no settlements located on
hazardous ground in the district. The district has
well maintained gardens and trees.

left. Moreover, a large population is located on
hazardous grounds; specifically more than 7000
people are located on either banks of the Yamuna
River. The air and water quality in the lakes
and river are very poor due to poor solid waste
management.

The least resilient district is East Delhi. The main
factors contributing towards low resilience are:intensity and severity of climate related hazards,
ecosystem services, and land use. The district ishighly vulnerable to flooding due to its locationnear the Yamuna River. The district experienced
floods in 1980 and 2008. Land use is very poor.
The land use pattern of the district shows adensely populated area. There is no green space

Central Delhi
North Delhi
South Delhi

NaturalEast Delhi
North East Delhi

Intensity / Severity of Hazards
5

3
2

New Delhi

54Environmental
Policies

South West Delhi

Intensity / Severity of Hazards

North West Delhi
West Delhi

4

Frequency Environmentalof Hazards
Policies

1

3
2

C

N
Frequencyof Hazards

1

S

E

N

S

N

N

Land-Usein Natural Terms

8

Overall

Ecosystem
Services

Land-Usein Natural Terms

All Districts

Ecosystem
ServicesW

N
Area (Sq km)
North West
North
North East
West

CentralNew
DelhiSouth West
South

East

Annual Population
Population Population
Growth Rate (between(2001)
Density
1991-2001)

Central25

644,005

25,855

-0.19

North

60

779,788

13,025

1.3

South

250

2,258,367

9,068

5.0

East

64

1,448,770

22,868

4.16

North East

60

1,763,712

29,468

6.25

South West420

1,749,492

4,179

6.13

New Delhi

35

171,806

5,117

0.25

North West440

2,847,395

6,502

6.01

West

130

2,119,641

16,503

4.78

Total Delhi

1,484 13,782,976

9,340

3.85

Table 2. Demographics of Delhi (2001 Census)

Central................................... 10
North.................................... 12South ................................... 14
East ..................................... 16
North East ........................... 18
South West ......................... 20
New Delhi ........................... 22
North West .......................... 24
West.................................... 26

9

CentralDistrict Profile and Overall CDRI
Central district has an area of 25 sq.km, which is the smallest among all nine districts. As per 2001
Census, the district population is 0.65 million with second highest density, which is 25,800 persons per
sq. km. The district is significant due to some important historical, administrative and strategic buildings.
Some of the important places are: Jama Masjid, Delhi Gate, Rajghat and Delhi Secretariat. The districtalso hosts some important sports venues like Feroz Shah Kotla Ground, IGI stadium and Ambedkar
stadim. The overall resilience of the district is low to moderate for economic and natural resilience,
moderate to high resilience in physical, social and institutional aspects.

Analysis Result
PhysicalElectricity
5
4
3

Housingand Land-Use

Water

2
1

Accessibilityof Roads

NaturalSanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialIntensity / Severity of Hazards

Population

5

5

4

Environmental
Policies

4

3

Central Delhi

Frequencyof Hazards

2

Physical1

3Community
Preparedness

2

Health1

54Land-Usein Natural Terms

Ecosystem
Services

3

NaturalSocialCapitalSocial2

Education
and Awareness

1

Institutional

Economic

Institutional

Economic

Mainstreaming

Income
5

5

4

4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

Budgetand Subsidy

102

Employment

11Institutional
Collaboration3

Knowledge
Disseminationand Management

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsPhysical
The physical resilience of central district is moderate for electricity, water, accessibility of roadand low for sanitation and solid waste disposal. The prime reason is due to less percentage ofsolid waste is collected every day and not all have hygiene access to sanitation. Apart from this,few buildings exist with building codes and very few houses are with high plinth level for normal
and flood water logging. The district scored 5th highest in physical resilience among all nine
districts in Delhi.

The overall social resilience of Central District is also moderate. The district scored low resiliencein population and health aspects. As per 2001 census, more than half of the total population is
located in slums and high dense districts. The score for health aspect is low due mainly to many
people suffering from water and vector born diseases. The district shows the least social resiliencein Delhi.

Economic
The district’s score in the economic aspect is low for income, budget and subsidy, finance andsaving, and employment. The is due mainly to the number of people living below poverty line, lessnumber of income sources, unemployment in youth and very small percentage of women working
in the formal sector. Also low access to credit facilities to prepare for disasters is the otherreason for low economic resilience. Among all nine districts, Central Delhi scored lowest in Delhi.

CentralSocialInstitutional
The overall score of institutional aspect is medium. The district has high resilience due to thecrisis management frame work, effectiveness of district body to respond to disasters, institutional
collaboration with other stakeholders and organization, and good governance. The district has low
resilience in the mainstreaming aspect. The district is 5th highest among all nine districts.

NaturalThe resilience score for natural is low for frequency of hazards, ecosystem services, land use innatural terms, environmental policy and security. The district is vulnerable to heat wave and water
scarcity. The quality of urban biodiversity is poor as well as urban soil, air and water quality.
Apart from this, more than 80% of the district is built up area. The environmental policy is low
due mainly to the poor implementation of environmental conservation policy. The district is 5thhighest among all nine districts.

Policy Implications in Relation to the HFA Priorities for Action
1. Making disaster risk reduction a priority

The institutional resilience of central Delhi is between moderate to high (3.73 out of 5). The disastermanagement authority is already practicing disaster risk reduction in the community. However, the city
government needs to create a platform in which they can facilitate partnership in the development
sector for the proper implementation of disaster risk reduction.

2. Improving risk communication and early warning

There are existing early warning and risk communication systems in the district. It can be further
improved by involving community members in identifying their risk. The city government support inbuilding skills and capacity of the community will enhance the participation of the community in risk
identification. It can also improve early warning systems for better improvement of risk communication.

3. Building a culture of safety and resilience

Information and knowledge on disaster risk reduction is already incorporated in school curricula in Delhi.
The city government can help the community in building a culture of disaster resilience at local level
through a public awareness strategy.

4. Reducing the risks in key sectors

The key sector for improvement is land use. The district built-up area is more than 80 % and it also
affects the living environment in the area. The city government needs to put up greater compliancestructures and mechanisms.

5. Strengthening preparedness for response

The city government needs to increase the number of disaster awareness or education programs forpeople who are living in the most vulnerable site. The authority needs to facilitate the development ofcommunity action plans for better preparedness and response.
11NorthDistrict Profile and Overall CDRI
The North district is situated on the northern part of Delhi. As per the 2001 census, the total population
is about 0.7 million with density of 13,025 persons per sq. km. The density is higher than the city
density of 9294 persons per sq. km. The important landmark of the district includes Red Fort, Chandni
Chowak, Darya Ganj, Legislative assembly of Delhi, University Campus and Old Delhi railway station.
The district also has rural and urban villages. However, the district shows a varied characteristic ofmetropolitan Delhi. The overall resilience of the district is between moderate to high due to social andinstitutional aspects. The district has low resilience scores in physical, economic and natural aspects.

Analysis Result
PhysicalElectricity
5
4
3

Housingand Land-Use

Water

2
1

Accessibilityof Roads

NaturalSanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialIntensity / Severity of Hazards

Population

5

5

4

Environmental
Policies

4

3

North Delhi

Frequencyof Hazards

2

Physical1

3Community
Preparedness

2

Health1

54Land-Usein Natural Terms

Ecosystem
Services

3

NaturalSocialCapitalSocial2

Education
and Awareness

1

Institutional

Economic

Institutional

Economic

Mainstreaming

Income

5

5

4

Good
Governance3
2

4

CrisisManagement

Budgetand Subsidy

1

Institutional
Collaboration

12

3
2

Employment

1

Knowledge
Disseminationand Management

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsPhysical
The district physical resilience score is low for water, housing and land use. It has high score forelectricity and accessibility of roads. The score is low among all nine districts. Solid waste is notproperly collected and very few buildings exist according to building codes. The city structure isold, so not many houses are above normal flooding levels.

SocialEconomic

The district overall resilience score is low due to a high number of people depending on one
income source particularly from the informal sector. The other factors for low resilience are lessthan 20% women employed in the formal sector, very few household has non-motorized vehicle
and poor budget and subsidy for disaster risk management.

North

As per 2001 census, the slum population accounts for a high number of the population in the
district. The awareness and knowledge of the threat and impact of disasters is not as goodas other districts. On the other hand, the population growth rate is minimal. The overall social
resilience is medium due to better health facilities, very small number of people suffering fromwater and vector born diseases, and higher participation of the population in community activities.

Institutional

The overall resilience score is medium. The mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction andclimate change adaptation is low due to poor integration into development plans as well as low
community participation. The other parameters like effectiveness of crisis management framework,
knowledge and dissemination management, institutional collaboration with other organizationand stakeholders, and good governance are good due mainly institutionalization of disastermanagement at the state and district levels.

NaturalThe district is vulnerable to heat wave, water scarcity and flooding. The intensity is medium. The
condition of ecosystem services is not good due to poor air quality, urban biodiversity and water
quality in lakes and rivers. The environmental policies are also not very effective due to poor
implementation at the local level. The overall resilience score is low.

Policy Implications in Relation to the HFA Priorities for Action
1. Making disaster risk reduction a priority
The prioritization of disaster risk reduction should be given more importance in the city development
plan. It needs more political commitment and support. The local government has to think ofmainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. The government needs tofacilitate and collaborate with stakeholders to make disaster risk reduction a priority.

2. Improving risk communication and early warning
The city has well functional warning systems for flooding and has identified flooding points. Whatneeds to be improved is the identification of risk by the community and involving them in hazard risk
assessment. The government can facilitate this through collaboration with local NGOs and stakeholders.

3. Building a culture of safety and resilience
The city government has incorporated disaster risk reduction into school curricula very well. The local
government can enhance the culture of safety and resilience by organizing more programs for those who
are the most vulnerable and lacking in capacity. The experience can be shared about lessons learned
from past experiences.

4. Reducing the risks in key sectors
The important sectors which need greater attention from city government are solid waste and sanitation,
land use, and environment. In addition, city government support of poor people through provision ofother sources of income will improve physical conditions. The city government has to focus on poor andvulnerable communities where unemployment is high.

5. Strengthening preparedness for response
Community knowledge and information on the threat and impact of disasters is low. Although districtlevel authority regularly organizes training programs in the community, the local government can improveon this by creating more programs for the community on information and knowledge building.
13

SouthDistrict Profile and Overall CDRI
The district area is 249 sq. km, which is third largest district of Delhi. It occupies 16% of the total areaof NCT of Delhi. The total population of district as per 2001 census is 2.2 million with density of 9068
persons per sq. km. The district is the second most populated district of NCT in Delhi. The populationof the district is mainly urbanized with only 8.11% rural. The important attractions in this district are:industrial areas, government offices, monuments and heritage sites like Bahai temple, Qutab Minar, Hauz
Khas Fort, Jamali Kamali, humanyun tomb, Arab ki Sarai, Old Fort Delhi, and Tughlakabad Fort. The
district overall resilience is between medium to good due to physical, social, economic, and institutional
aspects. It is the second highest resilient district among all nine districts.

Analysis Result
PhysicalElectricity
5
4
3

Housingand Land-Use

Water

2
1

Accessibilityof Roads

NaturalSanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialIntensity / Severity of Hazards

Population

5

5

4

Environmental
Policies

43South Delhi

Frequencyof Hazards

2

Physical1

3Community
Preparedness

2

Health1

54Land-Usein Natural Terms

Ecosystem
Services

3

NaturalSocialCapitalSocial2

Education
and Awareness

1

Institutional

Good
Governance

Economic

Institutional

Economic

Mainstreaming

Income

5

5

4

4

3
2

CrisisManagement

Budgetand Subsidy

14

2

Employment

11Institutional
Collaboration3

Knowledge
Disseminationand Management

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsPhysical
The physical resilience is high for electricity and accessibility of road. The district resilience
score is medium for housing and land use, water, and sanitation and disposal. The district has avery good road network with little obstruction during rainy season. The condition of solid waste
collection and treatment is not good and a large area of the district is affected by interruptions
in water supply. The building codes are followed by only a few buildings. The district is third
highest resilient district among all nine districts.

The district is the second highest in social resilience among all nine districts of Delhi. The
district resilience is between medium to good. The district has functional and accessible medical
hospitals, the literacy rate is above 80 percent, and participation of the district population incommunity activity is high. The district scored low in population due mainly to a high annual
population growth of 5% as per 2001 census and quite high population density.

Economic
The economic resilience is medium for income, and employment. Only 11-20% of the district
population lives below poverty line. There are two major sources of income. The households inthe district own all household assets. On the other hand, only 10% of residential houses haveinsurance. The budget and subsidy for disaster risk management is low. The district has thesecond highest resilience among all nine districts of Delhi.

South

SocialInstitutional
The institutional resilience score is highest among all nine districts of Delhi. The district resilience
score is very high for such parameters as effectiveness of district’s crisis management framework,
knowledge dissemination and management, institutional collaboration with other organizations
and stakeholders, and good governance. The resilience value for mainstreaming of disaster risk
reduction and climate change adaptation is low.

NaturalThe natural resilience score is very low for environmental policy and security. The district isvulnerable to flooding, heat wave, and water shortage. Similarly, the condition of urban air andwater quality and urban biodiversity is between medium to good. The district has more areas
covered in green. The implementation of environmental policy is poor. The district is the third
highest resilient district among all nine districts of Delhi.

Policy Implications in Relation to the HFA Priorities for Action
1. Making disaster risk reduction a priority

The city government needs to allocate budget for climate change and disaster risk reduction for all nine
districts of Delhi. For effective integration of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation intodevelopment plans, more collaboration and support from the government are required. The initiatives of
the government should increase community participation.

2. Improving risk communication and early warning

The identification of risk by the community is essential for improving risk information and early
warning. The local government should increase the effectiveness of risk information and early warning
by incorporating experiences of risk and facilitating the community in preparing action plans to tackle
disasters.

3. Building a culture of safety and resilience

The resilience score in community preparedness for disaster is high. If the government wants tosustain this culture of safety and resilience, more public awareness programs at regular intervals are
required. The government should also facilitate the documentation of multi risk assessment and disaster
experience.

4. Reducing the risks in key sectors

The city government need to put great attention on environmental policy, allocation of budget forclimate change related disaster risk reduction, and housing and land use. The district also has a water
scarcity problem. Therefore, systems for alternative emergency water supply need to be explored.

5. Strengthening preparedness for response

Rapid task force exists at state and local level. The strength of the district in terms of preparedness
can be improved by increasing the number of emergency workers, more collaboration with NGOs andpublic private partnership.
15

East
District Profile and Overall CDRI
The district has an area of 64 sq. km which covers 4.31% of the total area of Delhi. As per 2001
census, the total population is 1.4 million with population density of 22868 persons per sq. km. The
district has the third highest population density in Delhi. The literacy rate is 85.10%, which is highest in
Delhi. East Delhi forms part of the Yamuna River edge and is more prone to flooding and earthquake
than other districts. The district is composed of demarked industrial areas in Patparganj and Jhilmil,
local Delhi Development Authority (DDA) shopping centers, residential areas, Jhuggi clusters, sports
complex, parks and lakes. East Delhi is the least resilient district among all nine districts. The resilience
score is between low to medium due to low physical and natural resilience.

Analysis Result
PhysicalElectricity
5
4
3

Housingand Land-Use

Water

2
1

Accessibilityof Roads

NaturalSanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialIntensity / Severity of Hazards

Environmental
Policies

Population

5

5

4

4

3

East Delhi

Frequencyof Hazards

2

Physical1

3Community
Preparedness

2

Health1

54Land-Usein Natural Terms

Ecosystem
Services

3

NaturalSocialCapitalSocial2

Education
and Awareness

1

Institutional

Economic

Institutional

Economic

Mainstreaming

Good
Governance

Income

5

5

4

4

3
2

CrisisManagement

Budgetand Subsidy

1

Institutional
Collaboration

16

3
2

Employment

1

Knowledge
Disseminationand Management

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsPhysical
The physical resilience of the district is low for water, sanitation and solid waste disposal, andhousing and land use. The score is high for electricity and accessibility of roads. The conditionof solid waste collection, recycling and treatment is very poor. Only a few houses in the district
are with ownership. The plinth level of the houses is about 20 to 30% and very few buildings areconstructed with building codes. It is the lowest resilience district in terms of physical aspect inDelhi.

SocialEconomic
The resilience score for economic aspect is between low to medium. The accessibility of credit
facility for disaster prevention is low; only less than 10 percent of the houses are insured. The
budget and subsidy for is low like in other districts. Less than 10 percent of all women are
employed in formal sector and about 19 to 25% youth are unemployed in the formal sector. Thereis only one major source of income. Households possess assets. Overall, this district is the third
least resilient among all nine districts in the economic aspect.

East

The social resilience of this district is between low to medium. The score for social capital is high.
The population growth and density makes this district less resilient. The higher the population, thegreater is the pressure on civic services and infrastructure. On the other hand, the district also
has the highest literacy rate. The health facilities are well in place. The community preparedness
at household level for disaster is poor. The district is the least resilient district in Delhi.

Institutional
The overall resilience level is between medium to high due to high scores in effectiveness of crisis
management framework, knowledge dissemination and management, institutional collaboration
with other organizations and stakeholders, and good governance. The district scored low
in mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. The community
participation in development plan is low. The overall ranking is third among high resilience districtsin Delhi.

NaturalThe district overall resilience score is between very low to medium. The score for land use innatural terms, ecosystem services, and environmental policies and security is very low. It is theleast natural resilient district among all nine districts in Delhi. The district is more prone toflooding due to its physical location. The condition of urban biodiversity, air quality and water
quality of rivers is very poor. Similarly, the district has very few or no green spaces existing.

Policy Implications in Relation to the HFA Priorities for Action
1. Making disaster risk reduction a priority

The mainstreaming of DRR and CCA is very low. The city government needs to allocate funds forclimate change related disaster risk reduction. Efforts are also required for more collaboration withdifferent stakeholders in incorporating disaster risk reduction into development plans. Engaging the local
community is also important in making disaster risk reduction a priority.

2. Improving risk communication and early warning

The district is more vulnerable to flooding and many informal settlements live along the river. The city
government needs to identify risk groups and encourage them to make action plans for quick response
during flood. The skill and capacity development of the most vulnerable group will enhance risk
communication and early warning.

3. Building a culture of safety and resilience

The culture of safety and resilience can be build by incorporation of DRR and CCA in the school.
Similarly, community preparedness can be enhanced through community awareness programs. This will
enable the community to share sound practices.

4. Reducing the risks in key sectors

In East Delhi, the settlements along the Yamuna River are the most vulnerable when hazard strikes. Moreattention to relocation in other areas where it is safer to live is necessary. Relocating to another place
will also help in the physical restoration of the river.

5. Strengthening preparedness for response

Every year, settlements along the Yamuna River frequently gets affected by heavy rainfall. The city needs
to help this community in terms of logistics, materials, and management. Effective disaster preparedness
requires community participation. Therefore, involving them in disaster management planning will improve
the level of disaster preparedness.
17

North East
District Profile and Overall CDRI
The total population of the district is 1.7 million in 2001. The urban population is about 0.1 million
and the rest is rural population. The population is the 4th highest in Delhi. As per 2001 census, thepopulation density is 29,468 persons per sq. km. The district has the highest population density in Delhi.
It also has the highest population growth rate in Delhi, which is about 6.25 percent annually. The district
does not show good infrastructure facilities unlike a metro city. The district is situated on the edge ofriver and more prone to flooding and earthquake than other districts. The majority of the populationin the district are migrants from neighboring states like Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, and Bihar. The
overall resilience of the district is between poor to medium. The district resilience is low for physical,
economic and natural aspect. It is the second least resilient district in Delhi .

Analysis Result
PhysicalElectricity
5
4
3

Housingand Land-Use

Water

2
1

Accessibilityof Roads

NaturalSanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialIntensity / Severity of Hazards

Population

5

5

4

Environmental
Policies

4

3

North East Delhi

Frequencyof Hazards

2

Physical1

3Community
Preparedness

2

Health1

54Land-Usein Natural Terms

Ecosystem
Services

3

NaturalSocialCapitalSocial2

Education
and Awareness

1

Institutional

Economic

Economic

Institutional

IncomeMainstreaming

Good
Governance

5

5

4

4

3
2

CrisisManagement

Budgetand Subsidy

1

Institutional
Collaboration18

Knowledge
Disseminationand Management

Financeand Savings

3
2

Employment

1

Household
AssetsPhysical
In physical resilience, the district is the second least resilient in Delhi. The reasons are poor
services in terms of water, sanitation and solid waste disposal, accessibility to road, housing andland use. Due to high population density, demand for services is more than the district can fulfill.

The social resilience of the district is between poor to medium. The district is highly dense andpopulated. The literacy rate of the district is above 75 percent, which makes this district a bit
more resilient. In the social aspect, the district is the second least resilient district in Delhi.

Economic

The economic resilience of the district is also between poor to medium. The reason for this is dueto the large number of population that migrated to the district to work in the informal sector andprovide unskilled labor services. The district is the third least economic resilient district among allnine districts of Delhi.

Institutional

North East

SocialThe institutional resilience of the district is low for mainstreaming for CCA and DRR. For the otherparameters, the score is high. The reason is due to the institutionalization of disaster management
at district level. The participation of the community in the development plan is minimal. Overall,
the North East is the third most resilient district in Delhi.

NaturalIn the natural aspect, the district is the second least resilient in Delhi. The reason for this is dueto the proximity of the district to the Yamuna River. Also, the condition of the environment hasdeteriorated in the past decade due to high density. The population pressure has created stresson civic services which consequently led to environment degradation.

Policy Implications in Relation to the HFA Priorities for Action
1. Making disaster risk reduction a priority
Adequate resources are required to integrate disaster risk reduction into development plans. Financial
resources are needed to create budget for climate change related disaster risk reduction. Human
resources and collaboration among different stakeholders are also necessary. Finally, the involvement of
the community in development planning is important in making disaster risk reduction a priority.

2. Improving risk information and early warning
Like the East District, the North East district is similarly located along the Yamuna River. Througheffective risk information and early warning the risk of the most vulnerable group who are living along
the Yamuna river can be reduced. The city government can support the community in hazard risk
assessment.

3. Building a culture of safety and resilience
The resilience score for education and awareness and community preparedness during a disaster ishigh. This resilience level can be further raised if more awareness programs are organized at the districtlevel. This will help in reaching the most vulnerable community and sharing of knowledge for disasterawareness.

4. Reducing the risk in key sectors
The district has low scores in housing, land use, solid waste and sanitation and environment condition.
The incorporation of DRR in environment policy is one mechanism to improve environment conditions.
Land use planning can be improved through establishing measures to incorporate disaster risk reduction
in urban and land use planning.

5. Strengthening preparedness for response
The district has a well institutionalized preparedness plan for response. This should be maintained byregular review of disaster awareness capacities and mechanism at institution and community levels.
19

South West
District Profile and Overall CDRI
The south west district occupies an area of about 420 sq. km. As per the 2001 Census, the total
population of the district is about 1.7 million with population density of 4,179 persons per sq. km. It is
the least densely populated district in Delhi. The district has 88 villages. The important landmarks ineast Delhi are: Domestic and International Airport, Delhi Cantonment area, Jawaharlal University, Indian
Institute of Technology, and Qutab institutional area. The overall resilience of East Delhi is medium due
to physical, social, economic, institutional and natural aspects. The district is the fourth most resilient
district in Delhi.

Analysis Result
PhysicalElectricity
5
4
3

Housingand Land-Use

Water

2
1

Accessibilityof Roads

NaturalSanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation

Intensity / Severity of Hazards

Environmental
Policies

5

5

4

4

3

South West Delhi

Frequencyof Hazards

2

Physical1

3Community
Preparedness

2

Health1

54Land-Usein Natural Terms

Ecosystem
Services

3

NaturalSocialCapitalSocial2

Education
and Awareness

1

Institutional

Economic

Economic

Institutional

IncomeMainstreaming

5

5

4

4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

Budgetand Subsidy

1

Institutional
Collaboration20

Knowledge
Disseminationand Management

Financeand Savings

3
2

Employment

1

Household
AssetsPhysical
The physical resilience is between medium to high due to good infrastructural facilities andservices like electricity and accessibility of roads. However, the condition of water, sanitation andsolid waste disposal, and housing and land use is not as good. It is the fourth most resilient
district in Delhi.

The social resilience of the district is between medium to good due to better health infrastructure,high literacy rate, community preparedness, and social capital. However, the high annual
population growth makes this district less resilient. Overall, the district is the fifth resilient districtin social aspect among all nine districts of Delhi.

Economic

The economic resilience of the district is between medium to good. The reason is due to theshare of working population, which is not very low, household assets, finance, and saving andincome. The district is the third resilient district in Delhi.

Institutional

South West

SocialThe institutional resilience is between medium to good. The reason is due to the institutionalizationof disaster management at the district level. The district has its own rapid task force and disastermanagement plan. However, the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation is poor. The participation of the community in development planning is also minimal.

NaturalThe district natural resilience is between poor to medium. This is due to poor ecosystem services
and environmental policy. The district is also prone to heat wave, water scarcity and flooding. The
green area in the district makes this district more resilient than other districts. Overall, the districtis the second highest resilient district among all nine districts in Delhi.

Policy Implications in Relation to the HFA Priorities for Action
1. Making disaster risk reduction a priority
Like other districts, the main streaming of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation isvery low. Financial resources are essential for making disaster risk reduction a priority. There is a needto create funding for climate related disaster and risk reduction. Along with financial resources, thecollaboration with different stakeholders from key sectors like environment, health, housing, education,and social welfare is necessary.

2. Improving risk information and early warning
At the district level, authorities can improve risk information and early warning by enabling thecommunity to engage in hazard risk assessment and building local warning systems.

3. Building a culture of safety and resilience
The schools in the district have incorporated disaster risk reduction. At the district level, training
programs are also conducted to raise people’s awareness. There is a need to enhance compilation,dissemination and use of disaster risk reduction information. This will enable information to reachremote areas of the district.

4. Reducing the risks in key sectors
There is a need to incorporate disaster risk reduction in environment management. Local actions until
now have not been able to prevent unsustainable land use and resources practices that increase
disaster risk. There is a need to incorporate disaster risk reduction in urban and land use planningbecause urban development plans do not incorporate appropriate disaster risk reduction.

5. Strengthening preparedness for response
The district has its own well functioning disaster management authority. Preparedness can be further
strengthened by developing increased networks for preparedness with different stakeholders at local level.
21New Delhi
District Profile and Overall CDRI
The district is the capital city of India. As per 2001 census, the total population of the district is 0.1
million with density of 4909 persons per sq. km. The district is the second lowest densely populated
district in Delhi. In terms of population, the district ranks lowest in Delhi. The district covers 2.36 percentof the total area of Delhi, which is 35 sq. km. The district is mainly composed of residential areas likelarge bungalows, foreign missions/state guest houses, government and private colonies; institutional areas
like government offices, cultural building and embassy area; and city center – Connaught place. The
important landmarks in this district are: Rashtrapati Bhawan, National Museum, and India Gate. The overall
resilience of New Delhi is highest in Delhi. This is due to the physical, social, economic, institutional andnatural aspects. The district has its own Municipal Body which maintains proper well functioning civic
services. The demographic profile of the district is one of the crucial factors for high social resilience. The
economic resilience is high due mainly the type of people live in this district. The natural resilience ofthe district is also high. However, the district is vulnerable to heat waves and water scarcity.

Analysis Result

PhysicalElectricity
5
4
3

Housingand Land-Use

Water

2
1

Accessibilityof Roads

NaturalSanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialIntensity / Severity of Hazards

Population

5

5

4

Environmental
Policies

4

3

New Delhi

Frequencyof Hazards

2

Physical1

3Community
Preparedness

2

Health1

54Land-Usein Natural Terms

Ecosystem
Services

3

NaturalSocialCapitalSocial2

Education
and Awareness

1

Institutional

Economic

Economic

Institutional

IncomeMainstreaming

Good
Governance

5

5

4

4

3
2

CrisisManagement

Budgetand Subsidy

1

Institutional
Collaboration22

Knowledge
Disseminationand Management

Financeand Savings

3
2

Employment

1

Household
AssetsPhysical
The overall resilience of physical aspect is high due mainly to better electricity, water, sanitationand solid waste disposal, accessibility of roads, and housing and land use. The district has aseparate well functioning Municipal Corporation which looks after civic amenities in the district.
The infrastructure facility in the district is well developed and maintained. The physical resilienceof this district is highest in Delhi.

The social resilience of the district is highest in Delhi. The main reason is demographics. The
district population is lowest among all nine districts. Other than demographic factors, healthfacilities are also easily accessed by the community. Social capital is high due to high social
cohesion among the community.

Economic

The district resilience level is high due mainly to income, employment, and household factors. The
district population is well educated and mainly engaged in formal sectors. The high score underhousehold assets shows that people are well equipped with household items. Budget and subsidy
are low similar to the nine districts. The district authority receives equal budget from state
government ever year.

New Delhi

SocialInstitutional

Institutional resilience is high due to the institutionalization of disaster management in the district,similar to the other districts. The institutionalization of disaster management leads to separate
establishment of Emergency Operation Center in all nine districts. The mainstreaming of disasterrisk reduction and climate change adaptation is not well implemented and weak. This is similar tothe other nine districts of Delhi.

NaturalThe natural resilience of the district is medium. The district is vulnerable to heat waves and water
scarcity. Environmental policy is less resilient due to the little consideration of district level hazard
maps in development activities. The extent of conservation of environment is not properly reflected
in development plans. The overall natural resilience of this district is high in Delhi.

Policy Implications in Relation to the HFA Priorities for Action
1. Making disaster risk reduction a priority

The mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation is very low. The effective
way to prioritize disaster risk reduction in development plans is by engaging multi stakeholders in a
dialogue to establish a common strategy for disaster risk reduction. There is need to allocate budget
for climate change related disaster risk reduction. A legal and regulatory system will enable DRR to be
integrated at the city level. Involvement of the local community is also important in making disaster risk
reduction a priority.

2. Improving risk information and early warning

The district has its own risk information mechanism, which is effective. It can be further improved byreviewing the available risk related information and the capacity for data collection and use. This will
help in collecting and sharing local knowledge and support in the decision making process.

3. Building a culture of safety and resilience

The district has its own disaster management authority. The culture of safety and resilience can befurther built by enhancing the compilation, dissemination and use of disaster risk reduction information.
This will help the authority in systematically documenting local events, coping mechanisms and expertiseon DRR.

4. Reducing the risk in key sectors

The key sector in this district is environment which needs to incorporate disaster risk reduction inenvironmental management. This can be done through policy and planning. The rate of urban green
space in the capital city of India need also to be monitored.

5. Strengthening preparedness for response

The preparedness mechanism for response can be strengthened by reviewing disaster preparedness
capacity and mechanisms which can increase the preparedness level in the district.
23

North West
District Profile and Overall CDRI
District North-West is the largest district in Delhi. It covers 29.67 percent (440 sq. km.) of the total
area of Delhi. The total population of the district as per 2001 census is 2.8 million, which is highest in
Delhi. However, population density is 6471 persons per sq. km, which is lower than Delhi. The district iscomposed of urban as well as sub urban areas. The overall resilience of the district is medium to good
due to medium resilience score in physical, social, institutional and natural aspects. The district is thethird highly resilience among all nine districts of Delhi.

Analysis Result
PhysicalElectricity
5
4
3

Housingand Land-Use

Water

2
1

Accessibilityof Roads

NaturalSanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialIntensity / Severity of Hazards

Environmental
Policies

Population

5

5

4

4

3

North West Delhi

Frequencyof Hazards

2

Physical1

3Community
Preparedness

2

Health1

54Land-Usein Natural Terms

Ecosystem
Services

3

NaturalSocialCapitalSocial2

Education
and Awareness

1

Institutional

Good
Governance

Economic

Institutional

Economic

Mainstreaming

Income

5

5

4

4

3
2

CrisisManagement

Budgetand Subsidy

24

2

Employment

11Institutional
Collaboration3

Knowledge
Disseminationand Management

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsPhysical
The overall physical resilience score is between medium to high. In terms of water, district
infrastructure is equipped with water treatment plans, rainy wells, ground reservoirs and overheadtankers. Housing structure is not very strong due to the semi urban environment. The district interms of overall physical score is the second highly resilient district in Delhi.

The social resilience of the district is also between medium to high due mainly to health,education, social capital and community preparedness during disasters. The district is equippedwith well functional schools, hospitals, and Residential and Welfare Associations and Market
Traders Associations (MTAs). The district is the fourth highly socially resilient in Delhi.

Economic

The economic resilience is not high in comparison to other dimensions. The total number ofworking population is 0.9 million, which is 32% of the total population and lower than national
average. This shows the number of household having more dependent population. The budget andsubsidy resilience is low, which is similar to the other eight districts in Delhi.

Institutional

North West

SocialThe institutional resilience of the district is between medium to high due mainly to theeffectiveness of district’s crisis management framework, knowledge dissemination and management,
institutional collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders, and good governance.
The district has its own team and emergency operation center for disaster management. The
overall resilience for the institutional dimension is similar to the other district due to theinstitutionalization of disaster management. However, the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction
is low similar to the other eight revenue districts.

NaturalNatural resilience is medium. The district is vulnerable to flood, heat waves, and water scarcity.
The condition of ecosystem is low due mainly to poor urban air, and water quality in lakes. The
resilience level in environmental policy is low similar to the other eight districts. Environmental
policy is common to all nine districts.

Policy Implications in Relation to the HFA Priorities for Action
1. Making disaster risk reduction a priority

The district resilience level is low for mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation. To improve mainstreaming, there is a need to prioritize disaster risk reduction in all
development sectors. The district has no specific budget for climate change related disaster risk
reduction. Allocating resources for prioritizing disaster risk reduction and encouraging community
participation in disaster risk reduction are necessary.

2. Improving risk information and early warning

The district is composed of both rural and semi urban areas. Risk information sometimes does notreach the vulnerable community due to their location in hazard prone area. Vulnerability and capacity
assessment at the local level will increase hazard information dissemination in the community.

3. Building a culture of safety and resilience

Information on disaster risk reduction is not very well known at village level. The local people generally
use their local knowledge to deal with disasters. Through proper disaster awareness program, theirawareness and skill can be developed.

4. Reducing the risk in key sectors

Disaster risk reduction can be focused on the key sector of environment. The resilience score is very
low for environmental policy. The incorporation of disaster risk reduction into environmental policy
through environment mitigation measures will support environment risk reduction.

5. Strengthening preparedness for response

The preparedness level of informal settlements is very low due to poor accessibility of resourcesand vulnerable location. The district should support the communities in making community disastermanagement plans which will provide effective and timely emergency response during disaster.
25

West
District Profile and Overall CDRI
The district is the fourth largest in Delhi. It covers 8.77 percent of the total area of Delhi. The district ishighly populated with a density of 16431 persons per sq. km. The total population of the district as per2001 census is 2.1 million, which is third highest in Delhi. The population is mostly urbanized and only
4 percent of the total population is rural. The district has a very high literacy rate, around 83 percent.
The work population is 33 percent of the total population with a dependency ratio of 1.95. Aroundhalf of the working population is engaged in household industry. The overall resilience of the district
is between low to medium. The aspects with low resilience scores are: economic and natural, whereas,
physical, social, and institutional are medium.

Analysis Result
PhysicalElectricity
5
4
3

Housingand Land-Use

Water

2
1

Accessibilityof Roads

NaturalSanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialIntensity / Severity of Hazards

Environmental
Policies

Population

5

5

4

4

3

West Delhi

Frequencyof Hazards

2

Physical1

3Community
Preparedness

2

Health1

54Land-Usein Natural Terms

Ecosystem
Services

3

NaturalSocialCapitalSocial2

Education
and Awareness

1

Institutional

Economic

Economic

Institutional

IncomeMainstreaming

5

5

4

4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

Budgetand Subsidy

26

2

Employment

11Institutional
Collaboration3

Knowledge
Disseminationand Management

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsPhysical
The physical resilience of the district is medium. This is due mainly to better access to electricity
and road. The condition of water and sanitation is not good because of high density which
creates more pressure on basic amenities. The district is the third least resilient district inphysical aspect.

Except population, the district has high resilience in population, health, education, social capitaland community preparedness during disasters. The reason is due mainly to the demographic
condition which shows high population with higher density. High literacy rate, better medical
infrastructure, and community preparedness make this district high in social resilience. The districtis the third resilient in Delhi.

Economic

West

SocialThe economic resilience of the district is low to medium due to the income and employment
situation. The dependency ratio of the district is higher than the national level. Around 50 percentof the workers are engaged in household industries. The district is the third least resilient districtin Delhi.

Institutional

The mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation is low like the othereight districts. The community participation in the development plan is very little. On the other
hand, the district has its own well functioning disaster management cell, decision making authority;
collaboration with NGOs and other government bodies makes the institutional resilience high.

NaturalThe district is vulnerable to heat waves and water scarcity. The condition of land use andenvironmental policy is poor. The built up area has increased after 1991. Overall, the naturalresilience of the district is low to medium. The district is the third least resilient district in Delhi.

Policy Implications in Relation to the HFA Priorities for Action
1. Making disaster risk reduction a priority
The resilience level from the study shows that mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and climate
adaptation is very low. The district should prioritize integrating disaster risk reduction into development
planning. The community should be encouraged to participate in disaster risk reduction. The district
should create a budget provision for disaster risk reduction. The development plan should incorporate
DRR in environment, health, housing, and poverty alleviation.

2. Improving risk information and Early Warning
The district body has its own disaster management authority. They are involved in risk informationand early warning. The resilience level can be further improved by developing communication anddissemination mechanisms for disaster risk information and early warning.

3. Building culture of safety and resilience
The district authority should continue to organize drills and awareness campaigns at local level. The
district can develop this culture of safety by reaching the most vulnerable community. Awarenessbuilding on disaster risk reduction can be further improved by focusing on the needs of the community.

4. Reducing the risk in key sectors
Due to high population growth, the environment condition has deteriorated. The resilience score is very
low for environment. The environment policy should integrate disaster risk reduction through environment
mitigation measures.

5. Strengthening preparedness for response
The district disaster management authority has well developed plans for quick response. To enhance
response, the district can review their capacity and mechanism and expand network for preparedness.
27

Way Forward
Community Action PlanningThis study seeks to build the capacity of the community with regard to disaster risk in Delhi. It utilizes
community action planning approach. Community action planning aims at community development
through problem solving. It consider problem which are actual and perceived. To solve the problem, theapproach helps community to rank their problem or prioritize their task as per the priority based upon
available resources. The key elements of community action plan are: rapid, intense, field based workshop
which is carried over 1-3 days. The results of the workshop are the list of community prioritized action
tasks that are short term, medium term and long term in nature. These action tasks intend to build
community resilience. The stakeholders involve in this approach are local community and external
stakeholders (like Non Government Organizations (NGOS), Community Based Organizations (CBOs), andvarious department of local government).
Based on the result from Climate Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI), the study further focuses on East
Delhi for community action planning. The study seeks to develop community action planning in middle
and low income groups. For low income group, the study utilizes sanjha prayas as possible entry point.
For middle income group, the study sees Bhargidari programme as possible entry point into Residential
and Welfare Associations (RWAs).The study sees the support of the Residential and Welfare Associations(RWAs) and the Sanjha prayas under the Delhi Government as essential for the questionnaire survey
to be conducted. The result of the survey will be shared with the community and with the otherorganizations. The outcome of the questionnaire survey will be a series of community identified tasks
which will facilitate in community action planning. It will help in understanding the priority tasks ofthe community in terms of disaster risk reduction. A workshop on community action planning involving
various stakeholders may be undertaken after the research findings are established.

Bhagidari Program
Bhagidari program is a government citizen partnership program launch in 1998. The main aim of thisprogram is to facilitate people’s participation in governance. It was initiated by the Delhi government
to create greater transparency and accountability in administration in order to improve the quality,
efficiency and delivery of public services. The actors involved in this joint partnership are: Citizen
Groups – Residential and Welfare Associations (RWAs), Non Government Organizations (NGOs), and Delhi
Government.

Sanjha Prayas
Sanjha Prayas is a program under Bhagidari. It is a partnership of the chief minister and slum dwellers
in Delhi. This program was launched in 2007. Through Sanjha Prayas, the effort is to mobilize thecommunity in taking initiatives like cleaning of slum area in partnership with Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (MCD), and Delhi Jal Board (DJB); maintenance and repair of water supply infrastructure to improve
the water supply of all area with DJB; Power camps; and access to livelihood programmes.

28