Many of these cities should follow Mumbai’s lead and develop hazard and land‐use mapping to improve knowledge on risk information for land‐use planning. But as outlined through our household survey, land‐use planning can realistically function only if accompanied by investments in transport and other infrastructure to make it possible for people to settle in safe places while maintaining access to the same (or comparable) jobs and services. And infrastructure investments in general will reduce the long‐term vulnerability of the population only if they serve poor people and only if new infrastructure designs remain efficient in spite of changes in climatic and environmental conditions.

In addition, ex‐ante grants targeted to low‐income households can incentivize investment in flood protection. Increased penetration of insurance through public‐private partnerships can hasten recovery by lowering out‐of‐pocket expenses after a flood. But such schemes may not be applicable for the poorest population. For this group, ex‐post compensation is necessary. The ad‐hoc schemes after the Mumbai floods in 2005 and the Bangkok floods in 2011 (Noy and Patel, 2014) are insufficient and not targeted to this segment of the population; adapting these schemes to be more systematic, better‐funded, and better‐targeted should be a priority to support the most vulnerable after a flood hits.

# 6. Summary and Conclusion

To summarize, this study has been carried out to examine the exposure, vulnerability and ability to respond of households in the city of Mumbai to recurrent floods and bring out policy implications for future adaptive capacity and resilience. Given the large presence of informal settlements and acute income inequalities in the city, the study has specially focused on the poor households. The study seeks to understand how poor households may be located in the flood‐prone areas vis‐à‐vis the non‐ poor households, understand the losses suffered by them on account of floods and examine the extent to which they have the ability to respond to floods. The key findings and conclusions from the study are as below:

- It is apparent from the flood exposure maps and land uses in the chronic and localized flood spots that the poor families are directly exposed to recurrent floods in the city. Most vulnerable families are living in slums or old dilapidated structures known as chawls. Flood waters regularly enter their premises and damage their assets and durables.

- The extreme precipitation on 26 July 2005 imposed a huge monetary burden on the poor on account of income loss, damage to structure of the house or premises, damage to household assets and appliances and damage to vehicles. Families below poverty line as well as poor and low‐income households suffered relatively greater magnitude of losses compared to their relatively better off counterparts.

- Poor households who suffer during floods are also uninsured. The insurance penetration levels are negligible among households in India. There is limited social safety nets as well. In the absence of insurance or social security, money spent on repairs and replacements are strictly out‐of‐pocket expenses borne by families regardless of their income levels. With low

28