climate and disaster resilience index of asian cities · 2016. 2. 8. · summary: urban resilience...

Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster ManagementGraduate School of Global Environmental Studies

Climate and Disaster Resilience Index of Asian Cities:

An Action based Approach

Coexistence ofContrast

Rajib Shaw


Outline

• Issues related to urban risk • City governance context: Assessment and

Planning • Implementation context: Community

actions [entry point and agents]


Growing Urban Population

Source: UNPD, 2010


Vulnerability


Informal Settlement

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=180604&id=105307386165015





Encroachment


Compounding Urban Vulnerability

• Population: growth, concentration, density, migration, social exclusion

• Location: hazard prone, compact built form, urban primacy

• Economy: imbalance, informal sector • Urban Environment: city management,

basic and advance city services, pollution, governance


Context

• Urban Context: Complexity• Climate Context: Uncertainty in downscaling• Governance Context: Regular city services• Implementation Context:Community linkages


Climate Disaster Resilience Index: CDRIMethodology

Key Question: How to address climate disaster risk to understand the resilience of a city?

CDRI tool: 5x5 matrix, 25 parameters integrating 125 variablesAnalysis: Weighted Mean Index

9

5 Dimensions and 25 Parameters


5-5-5 Matrix Physical Social Economic Institutional NaturalElectricity Population Income Mainstreaming Intensity

Water Health Employment Crisis management

Frequency

Sanitation, Solid waste

Education and awareness

Household assets

Institution Ecosystem

Infrastructure and Roads

Social capital Finance and savings

Collaboration Land-use

Housing and land-use

Social cohesion

Budget and subsidy

Good governance

Environmental policies

Poor1 Bad2 Moderate3 Good4 Best 5


Indian Cities Resilience Assessment (1)Study details

12

o India: 12 cities of India

o Key aim of study: Assess the resilience of small-, medium- and large-scale cities with different exposure to natural hazards

o Methodology: Climate and Disaster Resilience Initiative → CDRI

o Data collection period: August to September 2009

o Partners: National Institute of Disaster Management, India Seeds India

Afghanistan

Pakistan Bhutan

China

Bangladesh

Myanmar

Sri Lanka

Bhubaneshwar

KanpurJaipur

Delhi

VaranasiGuwahati

Aizawl

Port Blair

Nagpur

AmritsarShimla

Kolkata

Mountainous

Coastal

River-side

Mixed

Arid


Coastal/ MixedRiver/ Semi-arid

MountainArid


CDRI: City Cluster Level

z


CDRI: Ward/ district / zone level• Chennai: 10 districts

– 180 sq km, 5.5 Ml • Delhi: 9 districts

– 1500 sq km, 12 Ml• Makati: 36 barangay

– 28 sq km, 0.5 Ml• Bandung: 30 sub-dt

– 168 Sq km, 2.3 Ml• Dhaka: 10 zones

– 360 sq km, 11 Ml


1

2

3

4

5Physical

Social

EconomicInstitutional

Natural

Overall Resilience

1

2

3

4

5Electricity

Water

Sanitation and Solid Waste

Disposal

Accessibility of Roads

Housing and Land-Use

Physical

12345

Population

Health

Education and AwarenessSocial Capital

Community Preparedness

Social

12345Income

Employment

Household AssetsFinance and Savings

Budget and Subsidy

Economic

12345

Mainstreaming

Crisis Management

Knowledge Disssemination and

Management

Institutional Collaboration

Good Governance

Institutional

12345

Intensity / Severity of Hazards

Frequency of Hazards

Ecosystem ServicesLand-Use in Natural Terms

Environmental Policies

Natural


Bandung CDRI Synopsis

Social, Physical, and Institutional Resilience

Economic and Natural Resilience

Confirming the need for actions


Time Series Analysis

2010

2013

Chennai, Colombo, Dhaka,Hue, Kuala Lumpur, Makati, Sukabumi, Suwon


Change in Trends: 2010-2013


Hue 2010-2013

2010 2013

Frequency Of hazards

Intensity ofhazards

Land use in natural term


Chennai Climate Action Plan [CAP]Physical resilience:

Social resilience:

22

Short-term (< 2 yrs.) Medium-term (2-5 yrs.) Long-term (> 5 yrs.)

Action 1 Involvement of communities into waste segregation practices

Saving of energy and increasing the use of solar power

Amendment of building codes, aiming for higher energy standards

Action 2 Stricter enforcement of Development Control Rules

Identification of areas for development and open space

Enhanced use of rain-water harvesting technique to increase available water (tanks, individual houses)

Action 3 Provision of long-term strategy to reduce the solid waste introducing tax incentive system

Short-term (< 2 yrs.) Medium-term (2-5 yrs.) Long-term (> 5 yrs.)

Action 1 Education programmes for family planning, particularly for women

Improvement of basic amenities (sanitation facilities, safe drinking water, roads, community welfare centres, parks, etc.)

Development of action plan to eradicate diseases

Action 2 Community-level early warning systems; conduction of drills in school

Community-level disaster recovery plans

Waste Electricity


40

33

30

40

50

37

30

50

31

41

31

24

25

19

28

7

13

13

6

13

14

16

7

10

6

20

20

16

25

15

15

21

19

16

8

21

14

14

21

19

16

15

16

17

19

19

14

17

21

15

18

21

16

16

18

18

24

24

21

18

18

20

21

16

15

11

19

13

21

16

16

17

19

18

21

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Enforcement of Building Codes

Promoting the Retrofitting of Old Buildings

Reducing the Number of Settlements Located in Hazard-prone Areas

Drainage Systems for all Roads

Improvement of Sidewalks

Pre-disaster Maps to Avoid Water-logged Roads

Introduction of Waster Segregation Practices

Development of Designated Sites for Debris Waste Collection

Conduction of Sanitation Education

Emergency Back-up of Safe-water

Implementation of Water Harvesting Facilities

Awareness Campaigns to Promote Reduced Usage of Water

Alternative Back-up (generator)

Promotion of Alternative Energy Sources (e.g. Solar Panels)

Promotion of Low Energy Appliances (e.g. eco bulb)

Hous

ing

and

Land

-use

Acce

ssib

ility

of

Roa

ds

Sani

tatio

n an

d So

lid W

aste

Di

spos

alW

ater

Elec

tric

ity

Phys

ical

23

Local Government Communities Academia Private Organisations NGOs

Community Leader’s Perceptions on Action: Chennai


Entry Point of Community Actions

• Case of Mumbai: – Advanced Locality Management [ALM]: focus on

solid waste management

• Case of Kobe: – Bousai Fukushi Community [BOKOMI]: focus on

social welfare


Mumbai ALM

• Established in 1998 as a part of city’s solid waste management program• Locality level activities [combination of slum and formal neighborhood]• 783 registered ALM • Segregation of waste, recycle [20%], compost [55%]• Establishment of public toilet facilities, gradually grown to other

community services [women’s empowerment programs]• Found to be less impacted in 2005 flood, rapid rescue operation by

neighbors


Kobe BOKOMI• Started in 1995 after the Kobe earthquake • Based on the school district [191] • Grant from city government

Change in the Number of BOKOMI & Participation Rate

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Year

No. of BOKOMI

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Participation Rate (%)

Number of BOKOMI Participation Rate (%)

Number of BOKOMI 11 26 58 89 120 151 178 180 183 185 188 190 191

Participation Rate (%) 5.8 13.6 30.4 46.6 62.8 79.1 93.2 94.2 95.8 96.9 98.4 99.5 100.0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008

Partnership Key Actors

All Residents

CommitteeMembers

Officersfrom KCG

Source: Kobe city


Change Agents• Youth Group in Philippines • Women Association • Faith based group: Mosque leader


Summary: Urban Resilience

• Urban complexity, especially related to climate related hazards

• Need to desegregate risk / resilience to the city services [water, electricity, sewage, housing etc.]

• Need to find the appropriate entry point [solid waste, welfare, health etc…]

• Need to find the suitable change agents


Available from: www.iedm.ges.kyoto-u.ac.jp

climate and disaster resilience index of asian cities · 2016. 2. 8. · summary: urban resilience...

Documents