CDRP – Climate Disaster Recovery Process in Chennai Summary Report

Zurich, Switzerland, December 2017

University of Madras About the Initiative The Climate Disaster Recovery Process Initiative for Chennai is an umbrella project of the Climate Policy group of ETH Zurich. This initiative builds on earlier work conducted between 2009 and 2012 as part of the Climate Disaster Resilience Initiative. This current research project was developed in cooperation with the University of Madras and with support from the Greater Chennai Corpora- tion, the Revenue Administration of the Government of Tamil Nadu, MLA offices of Mylapore and Velachery constituencies. A full master thesis of this research project is available upon request.

Title CDRP – Climate Disaster Recovery Process in Chennai: Final Summary Report

Report prepared by Dr. Jonas Joerin1 Prof. Ramasamy R. Krishnamurthy2 Franziska Steinberger1 Dr. Anna Scolobig1

Acknowledgments Dr. K. Satyagopal, IAS, Principal Secretary/Commissioner of the Revenue Administration of the Government of Tamil Nadu Dr. D. Karthikeyan, IAS, Commissioner of the Greater Chennai Corporation Dr. R. Nataraj, IPS, MLA of Mylapore Constituency Mr. Vagai Chandrasekhar, MLA of Velachery Constituency

Special thanks to various representatives from residential welfare associations, NGOs and youth organisations to support data collection and validation process.

Title picture New settlements in Perungudi, Chennai

Layout Sandro Bösch

1 ETH Zurich, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Universitaetstrasse 16, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland [email protected], +41 44 632 32 40

2 University of Madras, Department of Applied Geology, Guindy Campus, Chennai 600 025, India [email protected], +91 9677045519 Summary Report 1 Executive Summary

After an unusual period of prolonged in- • The recovery time for socio-economic fac- tensive rainfall caused by a coincidence of tors (physical health, mental health, em- the northeast monsoon (October-December) ployment, household income, education, and the El Niño, Chennai was badly affected household assets, etc.) took longer to be by the 2015 South Indian floods. As Chennai restored compared to the physical items. is built around a former lagoon andis thus lo- For example, mental health took in avera- cated at the end of a series of water bodies, it ge up to four months to be recovered and is vulnerable to excessive periods of rainfall. household income losses more than three Since the catchment areas in Kanchipuram months in both areas. District were already filled-up by the end of • While physical items took longer to be November 2015, the relentless downpour of recovered in the more affected area rainfallon December 1, 2015, triggered the (Velachery), socio-economic factors took floods and forced the city to stand still. On equally long to be restored in Mylapore this day in average and citywide 286mm of and Velachery. rain fell within 24 hours[1] and the catchment areas of Adyar and Cooum received about 490 • The level of satisfaction about the recovery mm of rain. The amount of rain recorded on process did not differ between residents December 1 was the highest in 100 years[2]. living in Mylapore compared to Velachery. Damages were estimated at USD 3 billion and Therefore, the recovery time does not cor- 301 casualties were recorded in Chennai. relate with the level of disaster affected- ness. In response to this disaster, we assessed the recovery process 10 months after through • Residents in the more affected area (Vela- a household survey in two equally exposed chery) became more active to be better (coastal) constituencies, Mylapore and Ve- prepared (stock emergency supply, make lachery. The objective was to understand how their home flood proof, get informed about the physical, social and economic conditions flood mitigation options, etc.) for a future of the city recovered following this disaster flood disaster compared to residents in event. Furthermore, we looked at the inter- the less affected area (Mylapore). play between communities and authorities in • Residents in the more affected area (Vela- the recovery process. Following the house- chery) also become more solidary compa- hold survey, survey validation meetings were red to residents in the less affected area held with residents of Velachery (June 29, (Mylapore). For example, more residents 2017) and Mylapore (June 30, 2017). participate in a volunteer group, talk to Key findings from this study include: other members of their community and request assistance from neighbours. • Residents living in low-land (marsh- land) and newly built areas in Velachery • Residents in both areas showed equally were more affected by damages (houses, high willingness (around 90%) to become household assets, health) compared to part of the recovery planning process. residents living in the older part of Chen- • The absence of a needs assessment and nai (Mylapore). The median damages per limited involvement of residents in the household wereINR 30,000 in Mylapore recovery planning process are key areas and INR 50,000 in Velachery. where the interplay between residents and • The recovery time (average) for basic ser- authorities needs to be improved in the fu- vices (electricity, water, sanitation, solid ture. waste management, roads and communi- • Overall, this study summarises that the cation) took about seven days in Mylapo- efforts by the various governmental agen- re and around 14 to 21 days in Velachery. cies were effective in restoring physical, Housing took in average 22 days in Mylapo- social and economic items. re and 33 days in Velachery to be rebuilt. 2 CDRP – Climate Disaster Recovery Process in Chennai Foreword message Summary Report 3 Introduction

After an unusual period of prolonged in- within 24 hours [1]. Damages were estimat- The 2015 South Indian tensive rainfall caused by the coincidence ed at USD 3 billion and 301 casualties were Floods in Chennai of the north-east monsoon (October-De- recorded in Chennai. The airport and basic cember) and the El Niño, Chennai was badly services stopped functioning, e.g. communi- affected by the 2015 South Indian floods. A cation lines and electricity were interrupted. relentless downpour of rainfall forced the Figure 1 highlights how the 2015 South Indi- city to stand still on December 1, 2015 after an floods unfolded and affected Chennai. in average and citywide 286mm of rain fell

Figure 1 Timeline of the 2015 South Indian floods in Chennai

The severity and unprecedentedness of was to better understand the physical, social Goals of study such an extreme flood event in Chennai, and economic drivers of recovery following a called for a thorough assessment to under- flood disaster event. Furthermore, we looked stand to what extent the city could recover at the interplay between communities and from this disaster. Hence, the key objective authorities in the recovery process. 4 CDRP – Climate Disaster Recovery Process in Chennai Methodology

Few studies exist that quantitatively as- sess disaster recovery processes [3, 4]. Hence, this study aims to contribute to the understanding of the factors driving recovery processes. For this purpose, we selected two adjacent constituencies (Figure 2) with equal Mylapore coastal exposure and inclusion of water Bay of Bengal bodies (e.g. Adyar river, canals in Mylapore and basins/lakes in Velachery). However, Mylapore forms part of the old town of Chen- Constituency nai whereas Velachery was just developed during the last two decades and contains Rivers marshlands. The population of Mylapore is Velachery about 300,000 and 600,000 in Velachery. We identified households in both areas 5km N through a stratified random sampling process. In total, 257 households in Mylapore Figure 2 and 264 households in Velachery were sur- Study area: Mylapore and Velachery veyed during October and November 2016. The content of the survey included questions that are typical to a post-disaster needs assessment, such as the provision of basic services (e.g. electricity, water, sanitation, housing, etc.) and socio-economic factors, such The analysis of the survey focused on as household income, employment, house- comparing the responses between the two hold assets, education, health, nutrition, etc. constituencies through statistical tests, in- For all these factors, we asked households cluding Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests. De- how long they needed to recover and whether scriptive analysis, including boxplot analysis, the services/factors were better, the same, complemented the tools on how to extract or worse than before. Additionally, we asked relevant information from the survey data. residents whether they became more active, Validation meetings with residents from the solidary and engaged in their communities affected constituencies served to verify the following this disaster. analysed results. Summary Report 5 Results

Among the surveyed households, the me- proportion (75% of the survey respondents) Damages on dian of the total recorded damages (damages of households in Velachery recorded dam- households on house, household assets and health) was ages up to INR 100,000. This highlights that INR 30,000 in Mylapore and INR 50,000 in households in Velachery were considera- Velachery. As Figure 3 shows, around 75% of bly more affected by the 2015 South Indian the households in Mylapore recorded dam- floods compared to Mylapore. ages below INR 60,000. In contrast, the same

Figure 3 Total median damages in Mylapore and Velachery

The reason for this is largely because the A somewhat weak correlation was found floods were higher in Velachery (as high as with the Pearson’s product-moment corre- 3m above the ground) compared to Mylapore. lation for the variables ‘annual income’ and A lack of effective drainage systems, particu- ‘total damage costs’ (p = 0.006, r = 0.136), in- larly in Velachery, is one of the key reasons dicating that households with higher annual why the water could not run off. Further- income also suffered from higher damages. more, Velachery is located in a low-lying area Moreover, Kendall’s tau correlation between with marshlands. The damage structure the variables ‘education’ and ‘annual income’ (Figure 4) shows that a majority of the dam- (p = <2.42e-14, tau = 0.298) show (weak cor- ages was attributed to damages on houses relation) that households with higher annual and a slightly smaller fraction was recorded income also tend to have higher education. on destroyed household assets. A significant correlation between the lev- 6 CDRP – Climate Disaster Recovery Process in Chennai

el of ‘education’ and ‘total damage costs’ people (32.27% in Mylapore and 16.87% in could however not be found. This highlights Velachery) and also a lower proportion of col- that the level of education is not decisive in lege-educated people (24.30% in Mylapore whether households are affected (household and 40.16% in Velachery). This shows that damage-wise) by a natural hazard, such as the level of education did not prevent house- a flood. Mylapore – compared to Velachery holds from being affected by the floods. - has a higher proportion of non-educated

100% 2723 3875 90% 80% 20298 47587 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 32521 56545 20% 10% 0% Mylapore Velachery

Housing Household assets Health

Figure 4 Damage structure (median values in INR) in Mylapore and Velachery

Therefore, the main reason for why The offer by the Tamil Nadu State gov- households were affected must be attrib- ernment for damage compensation was col- uted to their actual exposure to the floods. lected by 75% of the surveyed households. The fact that the damage structure (Figure Among the 25% who did not receive damage 4) does not vary between the two constituen- compensation, half responded that they did cies confirms that the level of education can- not need it and the other half said that they not serve as an explanation for why house- did not receive it. holds suffered from damages on their house, household assets and health. Summary Report 7

In this study, the primary objective was before the floods. We interpret this in two Recovery process – to better understand the flood recovery pro- ways: either households were genuinely Physical dimension cess. Table 1 shows that for physical items satisfied with the recovery process, or they the recovery time differed between Mylapore were already happy if somehow the physical and Velachery. It took less time for Mylapore items functioned again and were not worse (less affected) to recover the provision of than before. During the validation meetings, electricity, water, communication, sanitation, residents urged for greater investments roads, solid waste management and hous- into basic services and the infrastructure. ing. This confirms the second interpretation that households were already satisfied if the Regarding the quality of the physical previous level of functionality got achieved. items, households in both constituencies Thus, both constituencies still need to in- overwhelmingly perceived that the physical vest in making their neighbourhoods further items were in a better condition (recovery flood proof against future similar events. outcomes) after the recovery compared to

Table 1 Physical recovery of Mylapore and Velachery [5]

Item Mylapore Velachery

Electricity (affected in %) 99.61% (n=256) 99.62% (n=263) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.59 2.72 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev 7; 7.16; 5.77 7; 12.75; 16.08 Water (affected in %) 98.44% (n=253) 92.80% (n=245) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.60 2.71 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 7; 6.89; 6.35 7; 16.74; 31.08 Roads (affected in %) 99.61% (n=256) 96.97% (n=259) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.56 2.58 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 7; 12.23; 32.69 10; 20.22; 39.21 Sanitation (affected in %) 99.61% (n=256) 90.53% (n=239) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.55 2.60 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 7; 7.74; 6.19 7; 18.08; 33.11 Solid waste management (affected in %) 98.44% (n=253) 93.93% (n=248) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.59 2.57 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 7; 7.84; 6.42 7; 21.25; 44.55 Communication (affected in %) 99.61% (n=256) 98.48% (n=260) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.57 2.69 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 7; 7.46; 5.79 7; 12.57; 16.12 Housing (affected in %) 80.93% (n=208) 82.95% (n=219) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.38 2.56 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 7; 22.44; 49.84 14; 33; 59.28

Unlike the physical dimension, socio-eco- household assets took longer in Velachery, Recovery process nomic aspects (Tables 2 and 3) show a differ- education, physical health and access to cul- – Socio-economic ent pattern in terms of recovery time. While tural activities took almost equally long. dimension the provision of nutrition and the recovery of 8 CDRP – Climate Disaster Recovery Process in Chennai

Table 2 Social recovery of Mylapore and Velachery [5]

Item Mylapore Velachery

Physical health (affected in %) 28.40% (n=73) 42.04% (n=111) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.51 2.56 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev 7; 24.79; 61.26 7; 25.43; 32.62 Mental health (affected in %) 1.17% (n=3) 10.60% (n=28) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.33 1.67 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 10; 106.70; 167.43 30; 111.40; 132.33 Nutrition (affected in %) 60.31% (n=155) 59.47% (n=157) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.53 2.61 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 5; 5.74; 5.01 7; 14.73; 24.95 Education (affected in %) 41.25% (n=106) 57.56% (n=152) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.34 2.44 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 30; 28..74; 5.74 30; 29.09; 15.81 Culture (affected in %) 14.01% (n=36) 26.89% (n=71) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.06 2.23 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 30; 30.28; 6.17 30; 36.55; 53.46

Table 3 Economic recovery of Mylapore and Velachery [5]

Item Mylapore Velachery

Income (affected in %) 12.06% (n=31) 30.68% (n=81) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.29 2.14 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev 30; 107.60; 132.9 30; 89.12; 113.55 Employment (affected in %) 0.78% (n=2) 10.60% (n=28) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.86 2.71 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 93.5; 93.5; 122.33 22.5; 29.89; 32.82 Credits (affected in %) 0% 3.03% (n=8) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): NA 1.5 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. NA; NA; NA 165; 159.90; 149.88 Household assets (affected in %) 89.11% (n=229) 77.27% (n=204) Recovery outcomes (0 no recovery – 3 better): 2.12 2.13 Days of recovery: median; mean; stand. dev. 30; 38.03; 64.87 30; 68.44; 90.68

For getting back at previous household in- firstly, the recovery time for socio-economic come levels, Mylapore took even longer than factors was not connected to the magnitude Velachery. In addition, more households in of the floods; and secondly, it took longer Mylapore were affected by losses of house- (one to three months) to recover socio-eco- hold assets. This highlights several points: nomic items compared to physical items. Summary Report 9

Similar to the physical dimension, house- between the recovery time and the recovery holds in both constituencies were satisfied outcome. This also proves that households with the recovery process in the socio-eco- differentiated between speed and quality of nomic dimension and felt that the various recovery. Thus, a faster recovery time for a items were in better condition than before the particular item did not translate into greater floods. This confirms again the disconnection satisfaction about its recovery outcome

Action became more ‘active’ in response to the dis- Underlying factors of aster. In both constituencies, households in- The above findings about recovery time and recovery processes creased their preparedness by stocking up recovery outcome require the examination of emergency supply, making their homes flood some of the underlying factors of recovery proof, insure household assets and getting processes. Figure 5 shows that households informed about flood mitigation options.

Figure 5 ‘Action’ triggered among households in Mylapore and Velachery [5] 10 CDRP – Climate Disaster Recovery Process in Chennai

Interestingly, households in both con- Solidarity stituencies became active, but all the above Households became as well more solidary values are lower in Mylapore compared (Figure 6) in response to this flood disaster. to Velachery. Although, Velachery is more People increased their willingness to provide flood-prone due to its topographic exposure, help and support to their community mem- households in Mylapore continue to be at risk bers and neighbours. In line with earlier from future flood hazards. The fact that all studies [4, 5], more people joined voluntary parts of the city were affected by the floods, groups, increased their social cohesion by although with varying severity, does not re- talking more to each other, and got inter- quire less preparedness against future flood linked. These are signs indicating that this hazards. disaster had a positive effect on communities in terms of increasing their social capital.

Figure 6 ‘Solidarity’ triggered among households in Mylapore and Velachery [5] Summary Report 11

Satisfaction detailed findings above for the physical and socio-economic items. Figure 7 highlights Although the recovery process in both that the magnitude of the floods did not have constituencies was exclusively led by the lo- an impact on how people evaluated the re- cal and state authorities with no needs as- covery process. Thus, people differentiated sessment conducted and involvement of res- between being affected by the disaster and idents, people were equally satisfied overall how their neighbourhood (constituency) re- with the recovery outcomes – similar to the covered ten to eleven months after.

Very satisfied Very dissatisfied Very satisfied 3.5% 6.6% 6.1% Dissatisfied 7.8% Very dissatisfied 11.0%

Dissatisfied Indifferent 12.2% 14.0% Indifferent 10.6%

Satisfied Satisfied 68.1% 60.1%

Figure 7 Satisfaction of recovery processes in Mylapore (left) and Velachery (right)

During the survey data collection process, solid waste management, sanitation, physi- Voices from people residents in both constituencies complained cal health, water, roads and electricity are that they were not involved in the recovery among those that bother people most in both process and also, they were not trained be- constituencies. Not surprisingly, residents fore the disaster. Residents in both constitu- perceive that infrastructure improvements encies were only informed through voluntary are among the key areas of future interven- groups (e.g. residents welfare associations), tions. Blocked waterways, insufficient waste personal contacts, newspaper and TV about management systems, unstable electricity the recovery process (Figure 8). provision are prioritised compared to ‘soft’ intervention measures, such as increasing During the survey, households were also people’s preparedness and ability to respond asked about topics that should be discussed to heavy rainfall events. in stakeholder meetings. Figure 9 shows that 12 CDRP – Climate Disaster Recovery Process in Chennai

Nobody came and asked us for our needs after the ﬂoods I only got news on how to act through TV and personal contacts

We did not receive any training on what to do in case of a ﬂood

Figure 8 Voices from households during survey data collection

Figure 9 Word cloud about topics to be discussed in stakeholder meetings Summary Report 13

On June 29 (Velachery) and June 30 • Entire waterways network has to be pro- Stakeholder validation (Mylapore), 2017, we conducted validation perly maintained meetings – recom- meetings in both constituencies. With the • Create interconnections to the Bucking- mendations support from the local Members of Legisla- ham Canal tive Assembly (MLA’s), residents were invited to hear about the survey results and provide • Desilting of waterways: so far only con- stories and feedbacks. Around 100 resi- ducted manually → require professional dents participated in Velachery and around help 30 in Mylapore. In addition to participating • Conservation of Pallikaranai Wetland: residents, representatives from the Greater maintain the influx of sea water Chennai Corporation, local NGOs and media were present at these meetings. • keep waterbodies intact

The participating audience approved the • SRB tools: sewerage pipes and construc- results and urged for rapid improvements tion have to be regulated of the urban infrastructure. Although, im- • Reworking of storm water drainage sys- provements are being carried-out, people tems stressed the need to speed-up the process • Lifting of ground floor level of houses before the next monsoon period starts. • Building of emergency relief groups Key recommendations by the stakehold- ers for Velachery are as follows: Key recommendations by the stakehold- ers for Velachery are as follows:

Meeting in Velachery 14 CDRP – Climate Disaster Recovery Process in Chennai

Meeting in Velachery

Meeting in Mylapore Summary Report 15

Meeting in Mylapore

• Rivers and canals should flow freely (re- • Unplanned housing constructions should move garbage) be avoided → conservation of waterbodies • Government should focus on all preventi- ve measures: e.g. effective storm water • Strict implementation of construction re- drainage system gulations

• Continuous desilting of canals throughout • Interest of conducting awareness raising the year: MLA funds should be used for programmes, e.g schools → acade- desilting canals → request Corporation mia-authorities interaction for support • Discuss with Director of Fire Services and • Financial and planning approval support take appropriate measures for flood pre- for lifting houses → provide proper gui- vention delines • Create a website for Chennai → dedica- • Water harvesting measures should be ted for disaster management purposes supported → awareness and strict im- and run by academia; run webinars; infor- plementation mal information networks during recovery processes should be expanded; websites can be funded through local sponsors 16 CDRP – Climate Disaster Recovery Process in Chennai

Way forward This study has shown that Chennai is vul- The results from this study can also serve nerable to flood hazards. Residents, author- other parts (constituencies) of Chennai and ities, scientists and NGOs are united in the thus, it is expected that some of the results understanding that the affected constituen- are likely to be of relevance as well to other cies require credible interventions to ensure neighbourhoods of the city. they can provide security to people and the Finally, this study improved the under- built environment. standing of disaster recovery processes and The next steps, based on the above rec- extract areas of where interventions can help ommendations, require communities and to increase the resilience of Chennai. Future authorities to work hand-in-hand. This in- flood hazards are likely to occur, but it is terplay has a great potential considering the also residents’ responsibility to reduce their fact that 88% of the households in the survey exposure and increase their ability to face showed willingness to become active in the harmful events. recovery process.

References

[1] G. J. van Oldenborgh, F. E. L. Otto, K. [5] J. Joerin, F. Steinberger, R. R. Haustein, K. AchutaRao, The heavy precipita- Krishnamurthy, A. Scolobig, Disaster recov- tion event of December 2015 in Chennai, In- ery processes: Analysing the interplay be- dia, Bulletin of the American Meteorological tween communities and authorities in Chen- Society, 97 (2016) 587-591. nai, India, Journal of Procedia Engineering, Elsevier, (in press). [2] N. Jayaraman, Why is India’s Chennai flooded?, in, BBC, 2015. [6] Y. Nakagawa, R. Shaw, Social capital: A missing link to disaster recovery, Interna- [3] G. Smith, T. Birkland, Building a Theo- tional Journal of Mass Emergencies and Dis- ry of Recovery: Institutional Dimensions, In- asters, 22 (2004) 5-34. ternational Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 30 (2012) 147-170. [7] D.P . Aldrich, Building resilience: So- cial capital in post-disaster recovery, Univer- [4] K. Tierney, A. Oliver-Smith, Social Di- sity of Chicago Press, 2012. mensions of Disaster Recovery, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 30 (2012).