Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 104, Issue 1, pp 139–167 | Cite as

An assessment of the potential impact of climate change on flood risk in Mumbai

  • Nicola RangerEmail author
  • Stéphane Hallegatte
  • Sumana Bhattacharya
  • Murthy Bachu
  • Satya Priya
  • K. Dhore
  • Farhat Rafique
  • P. Mathur
  • Nicolas Naville
  • Fanny Henriet
  • Celine Herweijer
  • Sanjib Pohit
  • Jan Corfee-Morlot
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Managing risks from extreme events will be a crucial component of climate change adaptation. In this study, we demonstrate an approach to assess future risks and quantify the benefits of adaptation options at a city-scale, with application to flood risk in Mumbai. In 2005, Mumbai experienced unprecedented flooding, causing direct economic damages estimated at almost two billion USD and 500 fatalities. Our findings suggest that by the 2080s, in a SRES A2 scenario, an ‘upper bound’ climate scenario could see the likelihood of a 2005-like event more than double. We estimate that total losses (direct plus indirect) associated with a 1-in-100 year event could triple compared with current situation (to $690–$1,890 million USD), due to climate change alone. Continued rapid urbanisation could further increase the risk level. The analysis also demonstrates that adaptation could significantly reduce future losses; for example, estimates suggest that by improving the drainage system in Mumbai, losses associated with a 1-in-100 year flood event today could be reduced by as much as 70%.,We show that assessing the indirect costs of extreme events is an important component of an adaptation assessment, both in ensuring the analysis captures the full economic benefits of adaptation and also identifying options that can help to manage indirect risks of disasters. For example, we show that by extending insurance to 100% penetration, the indirect effects of flooding could be almost halved. We conclude that, while this study explores only the upper-bound climate scenario, the risk-assessment core demonstrated in this study could form an important quantitative tool in developing city-scale adaptation strategies. We provide a discussion of sources of uncertainty and risk-based tools could be linked with decision-making approaches to inform adaptation plans that are robust to climate change.

Keywords

Return Period Flood Risk Shuttle Radar Topography Mission Climate Change Adaptation Direct Loss 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander LV et al. (2006) Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. J Geophys Res 111:D05109. doi: 10.1029/2005JD006290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson C, Clay E (2004) Understanding the economic and financial impact of natural disasters. The international bank for reconstruction and development, The World Bank, Washington D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brookshire DS, Chang SE, Cochrane H, Olson R, Rose A, Steenson J (1997) Direct and indirect economic losses for earthquake damage. Earthq Spectra 13:683–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter TR, Jones RN, Lu X, Bhadwal S, Conde C, Mearns LO, O’Neill BC, Rounsevell MDA, Zurek MB (2007) New assessment methods and the characterisation of future conditions. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 133–171Google Scholar
  5. Dartmouth Flood Observatory (2008) http://www.dartmouth.edu/~floods/Archives/index.html
  6. Dessai S, Hulme M, Lempert R, Pielke R Jr (2009) Climate prediction: a limit to adaptation? In: Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press. Available at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2626-2009.01.pdf
  7. Duryog Nivaran (2005) South Asia disaster report 2005. http://www.duryognivaran.org/sa_annualdisaster.php#
  8. Fankhauser S, Smith J, Tol R (1999) Weathering climate change: some simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Ecol Econ 30Google Scholar
  9. Government of Maharashtra (GoM) (2005) Maharashtra floods 2005: relief and rehabilitation. http://mdmu.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/Flood/statusreport.pdf
  10. Grossi P, Kunreuther H (2005) Catastrophe modeling: a new approach to managing risk. Huebner international series on risk, insurance and economic security. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Gupta K (2007) Urban flood resilience planning and management and lessons for the future: a case of study in Mumbai, India. Urban Water J 4(3):183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hallegatte S (2008) An adaptive regional input–output model and its application to the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina. Risk Anal 28(3). doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hallegatte S (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob Environ Change 19:240–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hallegatte S, Dumas P (2008a) Can natural disasters have positive consequences? Investigating the role of embodied technical change. Ecol Econ 68(3):777–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hallegatte S, Ghil M (2008b) Natural disasters impacting a macroeconomic model with endogenous dynamics. Ecol Econ 68(1–2):582–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallegatte S, Hourcade J-C, Dumas P (2007) Why economic dynamics matter in assessing climate change damages: illustration on extreme events. Ecol Econ 62(2):330–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hallegatte S, Henriet F, Corfee-Morlot J (2011a) The economics of climate change impacts and policy benefits at city scale: a conceptual framework. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9976-5 Google Scholar
  18. Hallegatte S, Ranger N, Mestre O, Dumas P, Corfee-Morlot J, Herweijer C, Muir-Wood R (2011b) Assessing climate change impacts, sea level rise and storm surge risk in port cities: a case study on Copenhagen. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9978-3 Google Scholar
  19. Hanson S, Nicholls R, Ranger N, Hallegatte S, Corfee-Morlot J, Herweijer C, Chateau J (2011) A global ranking of port cities with high exposure to climate extremes. Clim Change. doi:  10.1007/s10584-010-9977-4 Google Scholar
  20. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 996Google Scholar
  21. Jenamani RK (2006) Observational/Forecasting aspects of the meteorological event that caused a record highest rainfall in Mumbai. Curr Sci 90(10):1344–1362Google Scholar
  22. Jones RG, Noguer M, Hassell DC, Hudson D, Wilson SS, Jenkins GJ, Mitchell JFB (2004) Generating high resolution climate change scenarios using PRECIS. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, p 40Google Scholar
  23. Kumar KR, Sahai AK, Kumar KK, Patwardhan SK, Mishra PK, Revadekar JV, Kamala K, Pant GB (2006) High-resolution climate change scenarios for India for the 21st century. Curr Sci 90(3)Google Scholar
  24. Lempert RJ, Collins MT (2007) Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Anal 27(4):1009–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindell MK, Prater CS (2003) Assessing community impacts of natural disasters. Nat Hazards Rev 4:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lubell J (2006) Housing displaced families, in rebuilding urban places after disasters, lessons from hurricane Katrina. In: Birch EL, Wachler SM (eds) University of Pennsylvania PressGoogle Scholar
  27. MEERP (2007) Greater Mumbai disaster management action plan, risk assessment and response plan, vol. 1. Maharashtra Emergency Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme, Government of Maharashtra, MumbaiGoogle Scholar
  28. Munich Re (2004) Megacities—megarisks: trends and challenges for insurance and risk management. http://www.munichre.com/publications/302-04271_en.pdf
  29. Munich Re (2006) Topics geo: significant natural catastrophes in 2005. http://www.munichre.com/app_resources/PDF/ts/geo_risks/04772_significant_natural_catastrophes_en.pdf
  30. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) (2008) http://www.mcgm.gov.in/
  31. Nakicenovic N et al (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 599 pp. Available online at: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/index.htm
  32. Pielke RA Jr, Pielke RA Sr (1997) Hurricanes, their nature and impacts on society. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Pohit S (2000) Income and employment effects inMumbai region: an input-output approach. In: Proceeding of the XIII international conference on input-output techniques, University of Macerata, Italy, 21–25 August 2000Google Scholar
  34. Ranger N, Millner A, Dietz S, Fankhauser S, Lopez A, Ruta G (2010) Adaptation in the UK: a decision making process. Grantham Research Institute/CCCEP Policy Brief, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  35. Revi A (2005) Climate change risk: an adaptation and mitigation agenda for Indian Cities. Environ Urban 20(1)Google Scholar
  36. Sharma M, Gupta K (2006) Storm water flow modeling of Mithi River in Mumbai Catchment. In: 2nd international IWA conference on sewer operation and maintenance, SOM 06, October 26–28, 2006. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharpley AN, Williams JR (eds) (1990a) EPIC erosion productivity impact calculator: 1. Model documentation. U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 1768Google Scholar
  38. Sharpley AN, Williams JR (eds) (1990b) EPIC erosion productivity impact calculator: 2. User manual. U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 1768Google Scholar
  39. Swiss Re (2006) Natural catastrophes and manmade disasters 2005: high earthquake casualties, new dimension in windstorm losses, Sigma Series No 2, 2006. http://www.swissre.com/resources/e109a780455c56b897efbf80a45d76a0-Sigma2_2006_e.pdf
  40. Tierney K (1997) Business impacts of the northridge earthquake. J Conting Crisis Manag 5:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wallis TWR, Griffiths JF (1995) An Assessment of the Weather Generator (WXGEN) used in the erosion productivity impact calculator. Agric For Meteorol 73:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. West CT, Lenze DG (1994) Modeling the regional impact of natural disasters and recovery: a general framework and an application to hurricane Andrew. Int Reg Sci Rev 17:121–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams JR, Nicks AD, Arnold JG (1985) Simulator for water resources in rural basins. J Hydraul Eng 111(6):970–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Ranger
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Stéphane Hallegatte
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sumana Bhattacharya
    • 4
  • Murthy Bachu
    • 5
  • Satya Priya
    • 5
  • K. Dhore
    • 5
  • Farhat Rafique
    • 5
  • P. Mathur
    • 5
  • Nicolas Naville
    • 2
  • Fanny Henriet
    • 2
  • Celine Herweijer
    • 6
  • Sanjib Pohit
    • 7
  • Jan Corfee-Morlot
    • 8
  1. 1.The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the EnvironmentLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK
  2. 2.Risk Management Solutions Ltd.LondonUK
  3. 3.Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le DéveloppementParisFrance
  4. 4.Ecole Nationale de la Météorologie, Météo-FranceToulouseFrance
  5. 5.NATCOM PMCMoEFChennaiIndia
  6. 6.RMS IndiaHyderabadIndia
  7. 7.PriceWaterhouseCoopersLondonUK
  8. 8.National Council of Applied Economic ResearchHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations