A multi-scalar group capabilities framework for urban flood risk management

Guide(s)

Malghan, Deepak

Department

Public Policy

Area

Public Policy

University

Indian Institute of Management Bangalore

Place

Bangalore

Publication Date

3-31-2026

Year Awarded

March 2026

Year Completed

March 2026

Year Registered

June 2019

Abstract

One of the key features of climate change has been variations in natural hazard patternsthat increase the risk of disasters. The IPCC framework conceptualizes climate risk ascomprised of three interlinked components: hazard, exposure and vulnerability (IPCC,2022). The frequency and intensity of hazard events such as urban flooding are projected to increase in South Asia, based on current trends of global warming (Ali et al.,2019; Busby et al., 2018). With both population and infrastructure being concentratedin cities, the exposure to hazards such as flooding tend to be higher in urban locations.Vulnerability has been known to be socially differentiated in exposed locations, based ondifferences in sensitivity and adaptation capacities (Adger, 1999; Aggarwal, 2021; Cutteret al., 2003; de Sherbinin and Bardy, 2015). Social and spatial inequalities contributeto increased risk for the urban poor in cities, by creating spatial clusters with low access to public infrastructure and services (Barbier and Hochard, 2018; Bharathi et al.,2022; Hallegatte et al., 2020; Susewind, 2017). However, the relationship between social and spatial dimensions of risk at micro-levels needs further discussion, to facilitateenvironmentally just adaptation and resilience planning.We identify three major gaps in the study of climate vulnerability. First, there is conceptual confusion regarding vulnerability and resilience due to the interdisciplinary nature ofclimate vulnerability studies. Second, the role of scale in vulnerability and risk analysisis often not acknowledged. Most studies are limited by the scale at which socio-economicdata is available, such as district or state. Individual vulnerability and spatial risk areusually studied at two different scales. Last, most studies of urban vulnerability and resilience are situated in the larger metropolitan cities of the global South. To address thesegaps in literature, we present and empirically validate a capabilities-based framework ofvulnerability-resilience production, in which ‘group capabilities’ is the analytical link between individual social vulnerability (vulnerability of people) and spatial risk (hazard andexposure of place). We show that group capabilities can be an analytical link for studyingthe interactions between individual social vulnerability-resilience and spatial risk, sincesocial groups tend to be spatially segregated within cities. We employ a mixed-methodsapproach using an Alkire-Foster index at the ward level, and a focused ethnographiccase study at the neighbourhood level to empirically validate this framework within thesmaller but rapidly urbanizing coastal city of Thiruvananthapuram (Alkire and Foster,2011; Armstrong et al., 2019; Shannon et al., 2024; Snow et al., 2003). This approachis also demonstrated to be useful for identifying concentrated spatial clusters of socialvulnerability in cities with low data availability.We estimate, i) ward-level spatial distributions of flood risk, ii) access to amenities (asa quantitative indicator of capability deprivation), and iii) social group dissimilarity bycaste and religion (as a quantitative indicator of residential segregation), to show thatthere are certain parts of a city in which social and spatial dimensions of risk compoundeach other. We conduct a comparative analysis of the ward-level spatial distributionswith three similarly sized southern Indian cities - Kochi, Mangalore, and Coimbatore - toshow how each city has a unique spatial distribution of flood risk. The ward-level analysis points to the presence of a distributive injustice in the sharing of burdens relatedto flood impacts within the city. We examine these socio-spatial correlations further,with a neighbourhood-level analysis in Thiruvananthapuram, relying on a mix of semistructured interviews, field observations and publicly available documents. We discussthe role of institutions (property rights, social marginalisation, collective action, andgovernance) in moderating these socio-spatial interactions. We observe not just differentiated capabilities, due to differentiated livelihoods and access to resources, but alsodifferentiated values and differentiated agency to achieve effect adaptation functioningsin different micro-clusters within the same neighbourhood.Institutions of property rights and social marginalisation have spatially solidified socialinequality in the form of residential segregation based on historical caste-based livelihoods. Residents’ associations, in this context, simultaneously emerge as institutionsof collective action and sites of exclusion. Institutions of governance have weak information flows with flood exposed populations as well as amongst themselves, unless ahazard event is in progress. We argue that residential segregation is a spatial mechanism through which social inequality (differentiated social vulnerability) produces spatial inequality (differentiated spatial risk). This argument explains the process of riskintensification in ‘ghettos’ of historically marginalised social groups and the productionof micro-clusters of socio-spatial exclusion within cities and neighbourhoods. This is validated by the observation of differentiated flood exposure, in addition to differentiatedvulnerability-resilience, within the study neighbourhood for historically marginalized social groups. Thus, the neighbourhood-level analysis indicates the presence of proceduraland recognitional injustices related to decision-making on urban flood risk managementwithin the city. This highlights the urgent need for decentralised climate adaptationand resilience building strategies that bring together technical expertise and local knowledge to address all three dimensions of environmental justice: distributive, procedural,and recognitional. Future research on vulnerability and adaptation will benefit fromconsidering social group vulnerability-resilience, rather than only individual/householdvulnerability-resilience, because it places environmental justice concerns at the heart ofclimate risk management.

Pagination

x, 212p.

Copyright

Indian Institute of Management Bangalore

Document Type

Dissertation

DAC Chairperson

Malghan, Deepak

DAC Members

Shah, Arpit; Deb, Soudeep; Thomas, Bejoy K

Type of Degree

Ph.D.

Relation

DIS-IIMB-FPM-P26-13

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS