Swiss Agency for Development

and Cooperation SDC

District-Level Climate Risk

Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought
Risks Using IPCC Framework

REPORT
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

District-Level Climate Risk Assessment for India:

Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Submitted by
Indian Institute of Technology Mandi
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, Bengaluru

Prepared under the DST and SDC funded project:

Climate Change Risk Assessment and Mapping at State and District Level in India

2024

Citation: Dasgupta, S., Barua, A., Murthy, I. K., Borgohain, P. L., Baghel, T., Sankhyayan, P., Vidya S., Narwal,
H., Jan, A., Vyas, S., Luniwal, Y., Ghosh, S., Cheranda, T. M., Alam, M. K., Matthew, S., & Pradeep M. S. (2024).
District-Level Climate Risk Assessment for India: Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework.
Department of Science and Technology, Government of India and the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation (SDC), Embassy of Switzerland.

3
District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Core Team
Shyamasree Dasgupta1, Anamika Barua2, Indu K Murthy3

Contributing Team
Priyam L. Borgohain2, Triambak Baghel1, Pooja Sankhyayan1, Vidya S.3, Himani Narwal1, Aarifah Jan1,
Surbhi Vyas2, Yashpal Luniwal1, Shankar Ghosh2, Tashina Madappa Cheranda3, Mir Khursheed Alam1,
Sahil Mathew3, Pradeep M.S.3

Advisor
N. H. Ravindranath
Retd. Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Coordinated by
Susheela Negi and Swati Jain
Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi
Divya Mohan
Team Leader, Strengthening Climate Change Adaptation in Himalayas (SCA-Himalayas),
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Embassy of Switzerland

The maps presented in this report were primarily created by the project team in consultation with the State
partners during the capacity-building workshops. State representatives were trained on the methodology
during these workshops and empowered to generate risk maps at various scales, leveraging their in-house
expertise and on-the-ground insights.

1. Indian Institute of Technology Mandi

2. Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
3. Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, Bengaluru

4
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Acknowledgements
We profusely thank Dr. Anita Gupta, Head of Scientific Divisions, Climate, Energy and Sustainable
Technology Division, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, and DST Climate
Change Expert Committee members, for their constant support and timely feedback. We also thank
Dr. Akhilesh Gupta and Dr. Nisha Mendiratta for their support. We immensely thank Mr. Pierre-Yves
Pitteloud, Ms. Eveline Studer, Ms. Divya Mohan and Ms. Tanushree Verma, Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation (SDC), Embassy of Switzerland, for their unwavering support and constructive feedback
and the SCA-HIMALAYAS project of SDC that supported the project. We express our appreciation and
thankfulness to Prof. C. Mallikarjuna, Prof. Govindasamy Bala, Dr. Sandhya Rao, and Ms. Mansi Gunawat
for their expert advice and consultation on the study. We also acknowledge the excellent logistic support
provided by Ms. Krishna Deori and Ms. Chayashri Basumatary at IIT Guwahati and the academic assistance
provided by the interns at IIT Mandi - Mr. Srikanta Mondal, Ms. Aditi Rajhans and Mr. Samba Siva Reddy.
We also extend our deepest gratitude to the state partners who participated in the workshops and
contributed to the assessment. We also thank Mr. Aryan Rathod from IIT Guwahati for designing the
project website and graphics for the report.

5
District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

State Partners
Arunachal Pradesh Karnataka
State Climate Change Cell, Dept. of Environment and Environmental Management & Policy Research Institute
Forest, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh (EMPRI)
Shri. D. Dohu Robin, Director. Dr. Pavithra P. Nayak, Research Scientist.
Shri. Rinching T. Gonpapa, Project Scientist. Dr. Shruthi B.V. Rajesh, Research Scientist.
Shri. Licha Bida, GIS Expert. Dr. Vanishri B.R., Research Associate.
Dr. Kiran K.C., Senior Research Fellow.
Assam Smt. Poorvashree P., Project Associate.
Assam Climate Change Management Society, Govt. of Smt. Parul Singh, Project Associate.
Assam
Kerala
Shri. Rizwan Uz. Zaman, Technical Consultant. Directorate of Environment and Climate Change, Govt. of
Smt. Dipima Sarma, Research Associate-III. Kerala
Shri. Arindam Goswami, Research Associate-II. Dr. Jude Emmanuel, Environmental Scientist.
Smt. Priyanka Borah, Senior Research Fellow. Dr. Shiju Chacko, GIS Specialist.
Smt. Bonanya Bora, Junior Research Fellow.
Smt. Jurishmita Bora, Junior Research Fellow. Madhya Pradesh
Environmental Planning and Coordination Organization,
Department of Environment, State Knowledge
Chhattisgarh Management Center on Climate Change, Govt. of Madhya
Chhattisgarh State Centre for Climate Change, Govt. of Pradesh
Chhattisgarh Smt. Sanjeev Singh, IAS Executive Director.
Dr. Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Research Associate. Smt. Lokendra Thakkar, Chief Scientific Officer &
Shri. Abhinav Kumar Agrahari, Junior Research Fellow Coordinator.
Shri. Ramratan Simaiya, Subject Expert (Agriculture).
Himachal Pradesh Shri. Ravi Shah, Subject Expert (Climate Change).
Dept. of Environment, Science, Technology and Climate
Change, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh
Manipur
Dr. Suresh C. Attri, Chief Scientific Officer. Directorate of Environment and Climate Change, Govt. of
Shri. Duni Chand, Environment Officer. Manipur
Smt. Shilpa Sharma, Junior Scientist. Dr. T. Brajakumar Singh, Director.
Smt. Monika Sharma, Junior Advisor. Shri. Yengkokpam Satyajit Singh, Junior Research Officer.
Dr. Sanoujam Manichandra Singh, GIS Consultant.
Jammu and Kashmir
State Climate Change Cell, Department of Ecology Meghalaya
Environment & Remote Sensing, Govt. of Jammu and
Kashmir Meghalaya Climate Centre, Govt. of Meghalaya

Dr. Majid Farooq, Scientist/Coordinator. Dr. Marbakor Mary Lynrah, Project Scientist.

Dr. Fayma Mushtaq, Geospatial Analyst. Shri. Vivek Lyngdoh, Junior Research Fellow.
Smt. Amica L. Nongrang, Programme Associate.
Smt. Tangwa Lakiang, Project Assistant.

6
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Mizoram Telangana
Mizoram Science Technology and Innovation Council and Environment Protection Training & Research Institute (EPTRI)
State Climate Change Cell, Govt. of Mizoram
Smt. A. Vani Prasad, IAS, Principal Secretary to
Er. H. Lalsawmliana, Chief Scientific Officer & Member Government, Environment Forest Science & Technology
Secretary. Department, Govt. of Telangana, and Director General.
Shri. Lalthanpuia, Project Scientist-II. Dr. J. Sesha Srinivas, Senior Scientist.
Dr. James Lalnunzira Hrahsel, Project Scientist-II. Dr. J. Rajeswar, Climate Change Coordinator.
Dr. H. Laldinpuii, Project Scientist-I. Dr. Anchal Rana, Research Associate.
Shri. M. Praveen, Senior Project Associate.
Nagaland Smt. Sushmita Patel Kakatiya, Governance Fellow.
Nagaland State Climate Change Cell, Govt. of Nagaland Shri. Sadhna Chaganti, Junior Research Fellow.
Shri. Thsope Medo, GIS Specialist.
Shri. Kenilo Kessen, Research Fellow. Sikkim
Shri. Meziwang Zeliang, Research Fellow. Sikkim Climate Change Cell (under NMSHE)
Dr. Dhiren Shrestha, Senior Scientific Officer,
Department of Science and Technology.
Odisha
Climate Change Cell, Forest and Environment Department, Smt. Kalzen Dolma Tamang, Project Scientist.
Govt. of Odisha Smt. Pema Yoden Bhutia, Project Associate-I.
Dr. Krushna Chandra Pal, Senior Scientist (Ecology Smt. Baichung Lepcha, Project Associate-I.
and Environment).
Er. Sujeet Kumar Sahoo, Consultant.
Tripura
Dr. Purna Chandra Mohapatra, Research Associate.
Tripura University
Prof. Sabyasachi Dasgupta.
Punjab Tripura Climate Change Cell, Department of Science,
Executive Director, Punjab State Council for Science & Technology and Environment.
Technology, Chandigarh, Govt. of Punjab
Shri. Susanta Banik, Scientific Officer.
Dr. Jatinder Kaur Arora, Executive Director.
Shri. Jain Souh Reang, Scientific Assistant.
Shri. Pritpal Singh, Additional Director.
Dr. Rupali Bal, Project Scientist-C.
Uttarakhand
Er. Maganbir Singh, Principal Scientific Officer.
State Environment Conservation & Climate Change
Shri. Dhirendra Chauhan, Information Officer (GIS). Directorate, Govt. of Uttarakhand
Dr. Kanchan Rawat, Project Associate. Shri. S.P. Subudhi, Director.
Smt. Manjeet Kaur, Project Associate. Shri. Ankur Kansal, Joint Director.
Shri. Pankaj Semwal, Junior Research Fellow.
Tamil Nadu
Centre for Climate Change and Disaster Management, West Bengal
Anna University, Chennai
Department of Science and Technology and
Prof. Kurian Joseph, Director. Biotechnology, Govt. of West Bengal
Shri. Ahamed Ibrahim S. N., Research Associate-III. Smt. Subrata B Dutta, Senior Scientist.
Shri. Jyotibrata Chakraborty, Former Senior Research
Fellow.

7
District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Flood and Drought Risk Assessment in India

In our previous endeavour, we developed a district-level vulnerability map for India (Dasgupta et al., 2021).
In it, we identified the locations of highly vulnerable districts where intervention would be required in
anticipation of climate change. Since vulnerability indicators are closely associated with development
indicators, addressing vulnerability creates a win-win situation for the government.
The allocation of adaptation funds in vulnerable districts, especially in sectors that act as drivers of
vulnerability, creates preparedness for a changing climate condition and results in overall resilience. While
vulnerability assessments serve a vital role in financial allocations and have their own merits, the assessment
of climate risk is a natural progression to a better understanding of the relative positions of districts with
respect to the probable occurrence of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.
The findings of the district-level flood and drought risk assessment on a pan-India scale and for 29 states and
Union Territories (UTs) are presented in Parts IIA and IIB of the report, respectively. The flood and drought risk
indices were developed based on the current probability of flood/drought hazards for 1970–2019, exposure
to the hazard, and system vulnerability. Based on the relative values of the flood and drought risk indices, the
districts have been categorised as ‘very high’, ‘high’, ‘medium’, ‘low’, and ‘very low’ risk-prone.
The report aims to compare 698 districts in India in general (in Part IIA) and districts within a particular state/
UT (in Part IIB). It may be noted that the districts are comparable only within the states/UT and not across
them – in Part IIB.

Key Findings
Flood Risk Assessment
• The flood risk arises at the intersection of flood hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.
• The district-level flood risk indices range from 0.015 to 0.688 across India, indicating that flood risks vary
across districts.
• 51 districts fall in the ‘Very High’ flood risk category (0.440–0.688) and 118 districts fall in the ‘High’ flood
risk category (0.284–0.439).
• About 85% of the districts in the ‘Very High’ or ‘High’ flood risk category are in Assam, Bihar, Uttar
Pradesh, West Bengal, Gujarat, Odisha, and Jammu and Kashmir.
Drought Risk Assessment
• The drought risk arises at the intersection of drought hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.
• The district-level drought risk indices range from 0.042 to 0.644, indicating the variation in drought risk
across districts.
• 91 districts fall in the ‘Very High’ drought risk category (0.510–0.644) and 188 in the ‘High’ drought risk
category (0.450–0.509).
• More than 85% of the districts in the ‘Very High’ or ‘High’ drought risk category are located in Bihar, Assam,
Jharkhand, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh,
Kerala, Uttarakhand, and Haryana.
Dual Risk of Flood and Drought
• Of the top 50 districts with the highest flood risk and the top 50 with the highest drought risk, 11
districts are at a ‘Very High’ risk of flood and drought. Districts facing this dual risk include Patna in Bihar;
Alappuzha in Kerala; Charaideo, Dibrugarh, Sibsagar, South Salmara-Mankachar, and Golaghat in Assam;
Kendrapara in Odisha; and Murshidabad, Nadia, and Uttar Dinajpur in West Bengal.

8
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Utility of Flood and Drought Risk Assessment

Comprehensive Risk Mapping
• Development of risk maps for floods and droughts facilitates a comparative analysis of districts within a
state based on standardised indicators, encompassing flood and drought hazards, the degree of exposure
to hazards, and overall vulnerability, fostering a holistic understanding of flood and drought risks.
Determining Flood and Drought Risk Components
• Helps uncover the relative contribution of flood and/or drought hazards, exposure, and vulnerability
within each district, facilitating identification of critical indicators that policymakers can utilise to prioritise
interventions to mitigate or buffer the impacts of specific climate hazards.
Enhancing Government Preparedness and Policy Guidance
• Both state and central governments confront mounting pressure to deliver drought and flood assistance,
driven by the rising frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Risk assessments enable state
governments to prepare proactively, allocate resources and staff, and design programmes. This will foster
resilience in districts most affected by floods and droughts.
District-level Flood and Drought Risk Maps to Facilitate Prioritisation and Optimised Resource
Allocation
• Hazard-specific risk profiles at the district level help identify districts requiring urgent attention.
• The maps enable policymakers to identify entry points and interventions. Moreover, they focus efforts
and resources on critical districts to buffer and/or mitigate the impacts of specific climate hazards.
Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation and Mobilising Climate Finance
• The assessments provide valuable insights to policymakers for integrating into the State Action Plan on
Climate Change (SAPCC). Periodic assessment updates, based on evolving hazard occurrences, ensure
strategies remain relevant and effective and are aligned with the goal of sustainable and adaptive
governance.
• They also facilitate the pursuit of climate finance by highlighting the urgency and significance of
addressing identified risks. This is crucial for implementing adaptation strategies to address climate
hazards in various sectors.
• Risk indices, rankings, and maps support the preparation of adaptation projects, enhancing the credibility
of funding proposals for national and international agencies, particularly in identified hotspot districts.
Promoting Community Empowerment
• Local communities and elected representatives can advocate for compensation or insurance measures in
response to high drought and flood-related losses.
• Understanding hazard risks strengthen community resilience by fostering proactive measures at the
grassroots level.
Targeting user groups
• Government and private sector, practitioners, researchers, academicians, climate professionals, and
local communities in concerned districts.

9
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Table of Contents
PART I: Introduction and Methodology....................................................................................... 19
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 20
1.1. Need for risk assessment using a common framework . .................................................................... 22
1.2. Objectives............................................................................................................................................ 23
1.3. Scope of the report............................................................................................................................. 24
1.3.1. Addressing flood and drought hazards................................................................................... 24
1.3.2. Adhering to the need towards capacity building . ................................................................. 24
1.3.3. Risk assessment for flood and drought under current climate.............................................. 24
1.4. The journey and approach.................................................................................................................. 25
2. Methodology........................................................................................................................................ 27
2.1. Conceptualising climate risk based on IPCC AR5 framework.............................................................. 27
2.2 Assessment of Hazard, exposure and Vulnerability as components of flood and Drought Risk......... 29
2.2.1. Hazard Assessment.................................................................................................................... 29
2.2.2. Hazard-specific exposure assessment....................................................................................... 30
2.2.3. Hazard-specific vulnerability assessment.................................................................................. 31
2.2.4. Calculation of risk index............................................................................................................ 34
2.3. Categorisation of districts based on flood and drought hazard.......................................................... 34
PART II: District-level Flood and Drought Risk Maps for India and the States and
Union Territories............................................................................................................. 35
3. District-level flood and drought risk: All-India mapping......................................................................... 36
3.1. Indicators of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability . ............................................................................. 36
3.2. Components of flood and drought risk indices – hazard, exposure and vulnerability ....................... 37
3.2.1. Flood Hazard.............................................................................................................................. 37
3.2.2. Flood Exposure.......................................................................................................................... 38
3.2.3. Drought Hazard......................................................................................................................... 38
3.2.4. Drought exposure...................................................................................................................... 38
3.2.5. Vulnerability.............................................................................................................................. 38
3.3. District-level flood risk in India............................................................................................................ 39
3.4. District-level drought risk in India....................................................................................................... 39
3.5. Dual risk of flood and drought............................................................................................................. 39
3.6. Drivers of flood and drought risk......................................................................................................... 39
4. District-level flood and drought risk: Mapping for Indian states and UTs............................................... 50
4.1. District-level flood and drought risk: Mapping for Indian states and UTs..................................... 50
PART III: Utility and Way Forward............................................................................................... 61
5. Utility and Way Forward....................................................................................................................... 62
5.1. Utility of the report ............................................................................................................................ 62
5.2. Way forward........................................................................................................................................ 63
References............................................................................................................................................... 64
Appendix.................................................................................................................................................. 70
1. Drought Hazard Index . ....................................................................................................................... 70
2. Flood Hazard Index.............................................................................................................................. 70
3. Drought and Flood Exposure Indices................................................................................................... 70
4. Drought and Flood Vulnerability......................................................................................................... 70

11
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

13
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

14
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

15
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Preface

Over the past decades, there has been an increase in the number of climate-related disasters, the
number of people affected, and the economic losses caused by these disasters. The impacts of climate
change are being manifested through changes in the frequency, intensity, or duration of extreme
weather events. These impacts, together with unsustainable development patterns, pose a serious
threat to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Management of climate-related
risks, including improved understanding and alleviation of the vulnerabilities to extreme events,
is imperative to minimize the adverse impacts on human health, society, and the environment.
The Global Climate Risk Index 2021, ranks India 7th in terms of the extent to which countries
are affected by extreme weather events. To foster and support adaptation with innovative
scientific approaches, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), is
implementing a project, Strengthening Climate Change Adaptation in the Himalayas (SCA-
Himalayas). The project is aimed towards enhancing the resilience of communities by
integrating climate actions into national and sub-national planning and implementation.
An integrated approach and inclusion of risk assessment in overall development planning can
significantly strengthen the preparedness and prioritize action towards climate change impacts
and disasters. SDC, under the SCA Himalayas project, together with the Department of Science
and Technology (DST), and a consortium led by Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Indian
Institute of Technology Mandi and Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, Bengaluru
rolled out District-Level Climate Risk Assessment for India. The assessment involved using a common
framework, to understand the components of risk (hazard, exposure and vulnerability) associated
with two prevalent climate hazards in India—drought and flood—in the context of both historical and
current climate conditions. A series of workshops were organized to develop a uniform understanding
of the district-level climate risks, and availability of datasets, and to map the vulnerabilities.
The present District-Level Climate Risk Assessment for India significantly contributes to enhancing
the capacity of State Climate Change Cells and State Disaster Management Authorities in flood
and drought risk assessment for adaptation planning. SDC would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate the Government of India, all involved States and Union Territories, and stakeholders
on the launch of this milestone report. We look forward to continuing and further strengthening our
excellent collaboration.

Mr. Philippe Sas

Head of Cooperation in India
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)

16
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

List of Acronyms
AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process
BMTPC Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council
CHC Community Health Centre
DEI Drought Exposure Index
DHI Drought Hazard Index
DRI Drought Risk Index
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
DST Department of Science and Technology
EI Exposure Index
FCFs Flood Conditioning Factors
FEI Flood Exposure Index
FHI Flood Hazard Index
FRI Flood Risk Index
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GIZ German Corporation for International Cooperation
GLOF Glacial Lake Outburst Flood
IHCAP Indian Himalayas Climate Adaptation Programme
IHR Indian Himalayan Region
IISc, Bengaluru Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru
IIT Guwahati Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
IIT Mandi Indian Institute of Technology Mandi
IMD Indian Meteorological Department
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LULC Land Use Land Cover
MCDA Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
MoEFCC Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
MPI Multidimensional Poverty Index
NABARD National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
NFHS National Family Health Survey
NITI National Institution for Transforming India
NIDM National Institute of Disaster Management
NRSC National Remote Sensing Centre
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Produce
PHC Primary Health Centre
PMFBY Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana
SAPCC State Action Plan on Climate Change
SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
SPI Standardized Precipitation Index
TWI Topographic Wetness Index
UTs Union Territories
VI Vulnerability Index
WBCIS Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme
WMO World Meteorological Organization

17
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

PART I:
Introduction and Methodology

19
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

1. Introduction
Climate change poses a formidable challenge to society and is a test of the capacity of individual and
collective decision-making to implement effective responses (Adger et al., 2018). Climate change, unlike other
environmental issues, stands out for its intricate interplay with people, social and institutional structures,
evolving environmental system dynamics, and temporal dimensions. Its complexity manifests in cascading
risks across physical systems, natural and man-made ecosystems, societies, and the economy. These risks
intertwine, interact, and, at times, breach critical thresholds.
The Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group-1
underscores the alarming reality of climate change, affirming that recent climatic shifts are both widespread
and unprecedented in millennia (IPCC, 2021). The report emphasises the far-reaching impacts of climate
change, stressing its current influence on every region of the planet and asserting that these effects will
escalate as surface temperature increases. Further, it indicates that global warming will be higher by 1°C to
1.5°C compared to the historical period, even under a very low greenhouse gas (GHG) emission scenario.
The report also points out that, as global warming intensifies, numerous facets of the climate system will
experience amplification, leading to elevated probabilities of occurrence of climate hazards and extreme
weather events. This includes heightened frequency and intensity of hot extremes, increased occurrences
of heavy precipitation, prolonged droughts, and more powerful tropical cyclones. Importantly, the observed
changes in extreme events magnify with each additional increment of global warming. As the IPCC outlines,
a warmer climate is expected to exacerbate extremes in both wet and dry weather conditions, with profound
implications for flooding and drought occurrences.
The report is a stark reminder of the urgent need for global action to mitigate climate change and adapt to its
escalating impacts.
Climate change is affecting ecosystem services that are integral to human health, livelihoods, and well-
being. The productivity of key sectors like agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, which rely on these services, is
significantly affected. The intensity of climate extremes is surpassing the resilience thresholds of numerous
ecological and human systems, resulting in escalating loss and damage.
Existing adaptation measures are proving insufficient in mitigating this loss and damage, underscoring the
urgent need to expand the scope and effectiveness of adaptive strategies. Particularly vulnerable are human
populations and systems as well as climate-sensitive species and ecosystems. They are exposed to climate
hazards, heightening the risk of adverse consequences. For example, the escalating impacts of global warming
will progressively undermine soil health and ecosystem services such as pollination, while concurrently
increasing pressure from pests and diseases, negatively affecting food productivity in various regions.
Climate change-induced extreme events are expected to amplify significantly both ill health and premature
deaths in the near and long term. Further, climate-sensitive diseases transmitted through food, water and
vectors are projected to increase under all warming scenarios. In the mid to long term, human displacement
and migration are projected to increase due to the intensification of heavy precipitation, droughts, flooding,
tropical cyclones, and sea-level rise. Risks associated with water availability and water-related hazards are
projected to rise across all regions in the mid to long term, too.

20
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Figure 1.1: Differential multidimensional vulnerability and capacities to adapt, driven by intersecting
dimensions of inequality (IPCC, 2014)

The distribution of the impact of climate change is not equal across the world and will depend on different
facets of socio-economic and demographic inequalities based on gender, age, class, race, ethnicity, (dis)ability,
economic status, etc. (Figure 1.1).
A certain category of climate hazard may pose different levels of risk to two communities that are equally
exposed if their adaptive capacities vary, resulting in varied levels of vulnerability. For example, an increase in
climate extremes increases the risk of infectious disease epidemics more in developing countries with a higher
incidence of poverty than in the developed ones (Oppenheimer et al., 2014) or the demographically vulnerable
stratum of a population (Basu & Ostro, 2008; Kovats & Hajat, 2008; Perera, 2008), and poor people with limited
access to infrastructure and small resource endowment (Frumkin & McMichael, 2008; Malik et al., 2012).
While emission mitigation is unambiguously crucial to reducing climate hazards, addressing exposure and
system vulnerability remains at the heart of adaptation policies, especially so given the disproportionate
distribution of climate change’s effects. Carefully crafted adaptation policies not only reduce climate risk but
also deliver several socio-economic co-benefits.
Further, integrated adaptation frameworks and decision support tools that proactively address multidimensional
risks and align with community values, prove more effective than approaches narrowly focused on single risks.
While some degree of adaptation is evident in both natural and human systems, there are gaps between
existing capacities for adaptation and the level required to mitigate the projected impacts of climate change
(IPCC, 2022). For an effective adaptation, policymakers must have a clear understanding of the nature and
source of climate risk.
It is also essential that the risk assessment is carried out using a common methodology across spatial units
or sectors, so the results are comparable. In countries like India, with many development challenges, such a
common approach helps policymakers locate the emerging risk-prone areas and sectors along with the drivers
of risk. This, in turn, facilitates the efficient allocation of resources, especially adaptation funds, to address
the drivers of climate risk in a targeted manner. The lack of emphasis on prioritising adaptation measures at
present, as well as the shift from incremental to transformative adaptation, is limited by finance, institutional
support, capacity, and tools.

21
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

This report contributes to the development of an all-India flood and drought risk map to identify the country’s
most risk-prone locations with respect to these two climate hazards. The analysis is based on a common
methodology developed in adherence to the IPCC AR5 and AR6 framework. It aims to balance the accuracy
of measurement and ease of use by relevant stakeholders, especially the state climate-change cells in the
country. Box 1.1 delineates relevant work carried out globally and in India, to understand flood and drought
risk and the contribution of the current report to the body of work.

Box 1.1: Relevant Work on Climate Risk

There has been an emergence of studies assessing climate vulnerability and climate risk, across different
spatial and sectoral scales since the conceptualisation of a modified climate risk framework by the IPCC in
its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The framework was retained in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) (Figure
E.1). While the literature on climate vulnerability assessment has grown over time, a comprehensive climate
risk assessment remains challenging, given the methodological complexity and data limitations.
Globally, studies compare climate risk across countries in terms of economic and life losses (Germanwatch,
2021; Swiss Re, 2024). At the national level, risk assessment studies are focused on specific hazards such as
drought (Carrao et al., 2016; Villani et al., 2022), extreme heat in Australia (Wang et al., 2023), and flooding
in river basins in China (Zhang et al., 2020), Austria (Leis & Kienberger, 2020), and a river in Bangladesh (Roy
et al., 2021).
In India, national atlases, such as the Climate Hazards and Vulnerability Atlas of India by the India Meteorological
Department (IMD, 2022) and a Disaster Risk Profile by the National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM
n.d.), offer comprehensive hazard mapping for the entire country. There is also the Climate Risk Management
Framework for India. The GIZ developed it in collaboration with the Ministry of Environment Forest and
Climate Change and the NIDM (NIDM & GIZ, 2019). The framework is focused on mitigating potential loss
and damage in specific climate-sensitive regions. The district-level assessment of the risk and vulnerability
of Indian agriculture to climate change by the CRIDA-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture is
another report in this context (Rama Rao et al., 2019).

1.1. Need for risk assessment using a common framework

The pervasiveness of concurrent and recurring climate hazards is a global phenomenon, intensifying the
repercussions on health, ecosystems, infrastructure, livelihoods, and food security across all regions. As
climate hazards overlap and amplify, the need for a comprehensive approach to risk management becomes
increasingly urgent. The intricate web of interrelated risks necessitates a holistic strategy that considers the
intricate interplay between climatic and non-climatic factors to safeguard the well-being of communities and
the sustainability of essential systems.
Therefore, risk assessments of a geographical area, sectors, etc., if they are based on a common methodological
framework, provide an opportunity to have a systematic and comprehensive perspective of climate risks.
Through risk assessments, it is possible to prioritise adaptation policies and implement suitable measures for
the efficient management of risks. This entails analysing the probabilities, repercussions, and responses to
climate change impacts, all the while considering available options to address the problem within prevailing
constraints. Climate risk assessment equips decision-makers with insights into potential courses of action by
pinpointing risks and evaluating their impact on individuals, assets, value chains, infrastructure, settlements,
and ecosystems.
Thus, vulnerability and risk assessment for a given region of interest is a critical first step in addressing climate
change and a step towards effective adaptation. In our previous work on ‘Climate Vulnerability Assessment
for Adaptation Planning in India Using a Common Framework’ (Barua et al., 2021; Dasgupta et al., 2021), we
carried out a pan-India vulnerability assessment and identified the driver of vulnerabilities. While the report
has its unique utility, it also ushered in the way to advance beyond using vulnerability assessment as a tool for
adaptation. It identified the need to transition towards climate risk assessment.

22
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

The integration of risk assessment is imperative for a holistic understanding and effective management of
climate-related challenges because risk includes vulnerability and the probability of occurrence of a hazard and
exposure to it. While experience in this domain gradually accumulates, there is an emerging recognition of the
utility of risk indices and maps in informing adaptation action.
Mapping climate change risks using a common framework is integral for understanding the entry point of
interventions. This approach aids in identifying the key risk drivers –whether they stem from hazards, exposure,
or vulnerability– and provides a comprehensive understanding of the challenges at hand. By delineating the
scope for adaptation and highlighting potential maladaptation pitfalls to be avoided, this exercise becomes a
guiding tool for states.
Moreover, it serves as a resource for optimising the utilisation of adaptation funds over a specified timeline.
For instance, addressing vulnerability may be feasible in the short to medium term, while mitigating exposure
requires a more prolonged commitment and substantial financial investment. With this information, states are
empowered to prioritise interventions, ensuring a strategic and efficient allocation of resources to tackle the
most pressing climate change risks.

Box 1.2: What can climate risk assessment deliver?

• Identify and Prioritise Risks: Helps assess and rank regions, districts, cropping systems, and communities
susceptible to climate change-related damages and losses.
• Contribute to Informed Adaptation Planning: Aids communication to decision-makers of the need to
address hazards and the drivers of exposure and vulnerability in adaptation planning.
• Anticipate Changing Risks: Improves understanding of how risks, based on historical or recent climate
trends, will evolve or intensify over time.
• Predict High-Risk Areas: Helps determine which districts, regions, and communities will face elevated
risks or increased impacts in the coming decades due to climate change.
• Quantify Risk Components: Provides an assessment and quantifies the extent of risk that can be attributed
to hazards, exposure, and vulnerability individually and their combined impact. It also highlights
that exposure and vulnerability are significant contributors to loss and damage from climate change,
sometimes outweighing the impact of hazards. It also provides a refined understanding of climate change
risks in light of climate hazards, while vulnerability assessments are independent of climate hazards.
• Identify Key Risk Drivers: Helps identify the core factors amplifying risk within communities and
ecosystems, examining their origins in hazards, exposure, vulnerability, or their interplay and identify
critical indicators that greatly influence overall risk.
• Facilitate Project Identification for Funding: Helps identify tangible adaptation projects suitable for
funding from donors, bankers, and other financial sources, integrating considerations of climatic hazards,
exposure, and vulnerability.

1.2. Objectives
The project’s primary aim was to assess the risk associated with two prevalent climate hazards in India –drought
and flood– in historical and current climate conditions. Additionally, it sought to enhance the capacity of state
climate change cells and related departments in flood and drought risk assessment for adaptation planning.
The specific objectives of the project included:
1. Develop district-level flood and drought hazard, exposure, and vulnerability maps leading to India’s flood
and drought risk map.
2. Develop district-level flood and drought hazard, exposure, and vulnerability maps for individual states and
UTs of India.

3. Promote capacity building of the state climate-change cells and allied departments in flood and drought
risk assessment for adaptation planning.

23
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

1.3. Scope of the report

1.3.1. Addressing flood and drought hazards
India’s various regions, including states and districts, face distinct exposure to a range of hazards. Their
vulnerability profiles are also different. Coastal areas are exposed to storms, cyclones, and hurricanes, while
mountainous regions are exposed to floods and landslides. Tropical or low-latitude regions are prone to severe
heat stress, although temperate and high-altitude areas may also experience significant challenges.
Droughts and floods, however, are the two hazards prevalent across the majority of the districts or regions in
India (Mujumdar et al., 2020). According to the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), 87% of districts in
the country are susceptible to droughts, 30% are at risk of floods, 14% are vulnerable to cyclones, and 13% are
exposed to heat waves (IMD, 2022).
Many districts are exposed to both drought and flood events, and during specific years, a district may experience
drought followed by floods within the same year. Thus, the current assessment focuses on droughts and floods
due to their large-scale socio-economic impacts in India. Nevertheless, the methods and guidelines will also be
applicable to evaluating risk to other hazards.
The flood hazard assessment presented here primarily specifies areas prone to recurrent riverine floods
and examines the evolution of associated risks over time and space. It is to be noted that this investigation
does not include the identification of areas susceptible to abrupt events such as flash floods and GLOF. While
the significance of various climate hazards, both direct and indirect, such as landslides and heat stress, is
acknowledged, this study focused on two predominant hazards - flood and drought, considering their
prevalence in the country.

1.3.2. Adhering to the need towards capacity building

One of this project’s central objectives was to enhance states’ capacity to conduct flood and drought risk
assessments using a standardised (standard) methodology. Consequently, we initiated this endeavour by
addressing the two most prevalent hazards nationwide. The rationale was rooted in establishing a standardised
framework and building the necessary expertise, facilitating subsequent replication of the process for other
hazards, including compound events. In other words, users/practitioners were to be enabled to use the
methodology and framework easily to carry out and/or update a risk assessment relevant to them.
Further, adopting scientifically grounded yet relatively simple methods, such as the Standardised Precipitation
Index (SPI) for meteorological drought assessment, was intentional. The decision aimed to ensure the
assimilation of knowledge by the target group, primarily the states involved in the study. By employing easy-
to-use methodologies, our training facilitated improved understanding and implementation of the flood and
drought risk assessment process, laying the foundation for future expansion to encompass a broader spectrum
of hazards.

1.3.3. Risk assessment for flood and drought under current climate
Based on historical trends for a given hazard, such as drought or flood, a risk could be assessed considering the
frequency and intensity of a hazard occurrence, using observations for the past 30 or 50 years. Given historical
trends, this ex-ante approach evaluates potential climate hazards a particular location may face in the future.

24
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Box 1.3: Salient Features

• Focus on drought and flood: The study focused on drought and flood, the two most prevalent climate
hazards in India, while acknowledging other hazards such as heatwaves and cyclones.
○ Drought is defined as meteorological drought, characterised by rainfall anomalies (deviation from the
long-term trend).
○ Flood risk is based on the probability of hydro-meteorological floods shaped by rainfall anomalies and
topographical, geological, and hydrological factors.
• Human-centric approach: Our analysis integrated exposure, vulnerability, and climatic hazards to evaluate
flood and drought risk. The risk assessment thus explored the manner and extent to which climate hazards
may impact people and livelihoods, considering hazard-specific exposure and inherent vulnerability.
• Ex-ante approach: Our approach aligns with the Prime Minister’s 10-point agenda (NDMA, n.d.) for Disaster
Risk Reduction (DRR), since the current approach is rooted in an ex-ante DRR framework – prioritising
proactive measures over relief-based strategies.
• Spatial scale: The assessment had been carried out at district level – an essential administrative unit for
decision-making throughout India.
• Temporal scale: The assessment was for both the historical or current climate, considering a 50-year time
period of 1970 to 2019.
• Comparability: The risk indices are relative in nature, and serve to rank districts within the country or
within a state or UT. A higher value of risk index signifies a district’s elevated risk compared to others. The
true utility lies in the comparative assessment.
• Capacity building: Training and capacity building at state level has led to creating awareness on the utility
and use of risk assessment framework. A broad approach and common framework for risk assessment
had been shared with states, thereby creating a knowledge network of state departments, academic
institutions, and universities.

1.4. The journey and approach

Capacity building of state climate-change cells and allied departments in flood and drought risk assessment was
a primary objective of the current phase of the project. In Phase I (2018 –2020), the focus was on vulnerability
assessment – introducing states and UTs to the IPCC AR5 framework.
Transitioning to the current phase, the overarching aim was to emphasise the need for risk assessment
(encompassing flood and drought hazards, exposure, and vulnerability), and train states or UTs to develop district-
level risk maps using a standardised common methodological framework.
To date, three capacity-building and consultation workshops have been conducted. They sensitised states on the
need for flood and drought risk assessment, its application, methods, and framework, including the selection of
common indicators for the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR). These workshops provided hands-on training to all IHR
state representatives (and some non-IHR states) to develop flood and drought risk maps. While the IHR states
participated heavily, engagement from non-IHR states remained around 60%. This, we think, poses a persistent
challenge.
Training for capacity building was through interactive workshops and hands-on experiences. These workshops
not only imparted training to state participants but also served to validate the assessment. This served to procure
state endorsement of the findings. We foresee that this exercise will enhance its utility in various contexts,
including developing State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCCs) and proposals to seek funding. Leveraging
the capacity built during Phase-1 (on vulnerability assessment), particularly among IHR states, the current phase
aims to bridge capacity gaps. Representatives from IHR states also helped build capacity for non-IHR counterparts.
This inclusive approach distinguishes our project from pure academic endeavours. It has empowered state
representatives to make informed decisions, allocate resources efficiently, prioritise interventions, and formulate
effective flood and drought risk mitigation and disaster management policies. In addition, they have gained
expertise and knowledge they could leverage to train people within their states or from other states. The exercise
empowered state representatives to replicate and update this assessment in the future in a manner relevant to
them. Figure 1.2 provides a snapshot of the journey and the timeline.

25
26
Phase 1 Phase 2
District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:

Expert
Consultation
All India Climate Meeting User Manual on
Need Assessment Vulnerability Climate Risk
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Workshop by IIT Assessment at Capacity Building under Current

Guwahati, IIT District and State Workshop Climate for
Mandi, IISc Level (612 Adaptation
districts) (Bengaluru) Planning
Bengaluru

2018 2018 2019 2021 2022 2023 2023 2024 2024

Manual on Climate Climate Capacity Consultation

Release of report
Vulnerability and Vulnerability Building meeting with DST
and SDC on “Climate
Risk Assessment: Assessment for Workshop
(IIT Guwahati) (New Delhi) Change Risk
Framework, Indian Himalayan
Assessment and
Methods, and Region
Capacity Building Mapping at
Guidelines Report released in
Workshop District-level in
COP 19
(IIT Mandi) India Using a
Common
Framework”

Figure 1.2: The journey and approach

 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

2. Methodology
2.1. Conceptualising climate risk based on IPCC AR5 framework
The IPCC (2014) highlights the concept of risk and its constituent elements, providing a comprehensive
framework encapsulated in Figures 2.1(a) and 2.1(b). Assessing potential risks to an ecosystem, infrastructure,
cropping systems, or communities hinges on the dynamic interplay of various factors. These include the nature
and intensity of the hazard, the scope of exposure experienced by communities and ecosystems, and the
susceptibility and adaptability of these entities—their sensitivity and adaptive capacity—to specific climate
hazards.
These three components of risk (hazard, exposure and vulnerability) could be conceptualised very differently
from the perspective of policy intervention. Reductions in hazards require long-term GHG mitigation. Therefore,
any policy to reduce climate risk by reducing hazards must be long-term and based on comparing short-term
economic benefits and future risks.
Land use alteration could reduce exposure in the medium to long run. In the short to medium term, reducing
vulnerability as an entry point of risk mitigation can be achieved (see Fig 2.1 b) (Thomas, 2017).

Table 2.1: Risk, Hazard, Exposure, and Vulnerability

Risk is the potential for consequences where something of value is at stake and where
the outcome is uncertain, recognising the diversity of values. It is often represented as
Risk (R) the probability of the occurrence of hazardous events or trends multiplied by the impacts
of these events or trends actually occur. Risk results from the interaction of vulnerability,
exposure, and hazard.

The potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend or

physical impact may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts as well as damage
Hazard (H) and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, ecosystems, and
environmental resources. In this report, hazard usually refers to climate-related physical
events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes.

The presence of people, livelihoods, species or ecosystems, environmental functions,

Exposure (E) services, resources, infrastructure, or economic, social, or cultural assets in places and
settings that could be adversely affected.

Vulnerability is the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. It encompasses

Vulnerability (V) a variety of concepts and elements, including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and a
lack of capacity to cope and adapt.

27
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Figure 2.1(a): IPCC Risk Framework (IPCC, 2014)

risk is the interaction

between a hazard, and
the vulnerability and
V
exposure of a population
Vulnerability

reducing these
reduces risk

H R
Hazard Risk
Adaptation

E
Can increase
with warming Exposure
Mitigation

Figure 2.1(b): Risks arising from climate change impacts resulting from dynamic interactions
(adapted from IPCC Risk Framework (IPCC, 2014)

28
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

2.2 Assessment of Hazard, exposure and Vulnerability as components

of flood and Drought Risk
This report provides a brief description of the common methodological framework. The manual developed as
part of the same project presents a detailed discussion.
Figure 2.2. is a schematic representation of the methodology.

Drought Hazard (DHI) Flood Hazard (FHI)

Hazard Index (HI)

Drought Hazard Factors Flood Conditioning Factors
Based on Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) Slope
Elevation
Climate Risk Index (CRI) Drainage Density
Soil Texture
=
3
HI * EI * VI Topographic Wetness Index
Standardized Precipitation Index
Distance to River
Geomorphology
Land Use Land Cover
Vulnerability Index (VI)

Vulnerability Indicators
Proportion of marginal and small landholdings
Livestock to human ratio
Exposure Index (EI)
Road density
Proportion of net soÊn area under horticulture
Area under crop insurance
Forest area per 100 rural population
Female literacy
Yield variability of food grains

Health infrastructure (per 100 sq. km)

Drought Exposure Indicators Flood Exposure Indicators
Multidimensional Poverty Index Population Density Population Density
Composite MGNREGA Index Percentage land under rainfed agricultural use Percentage land under agricultural use

Figure 2.2: Schematic depiction of the methodology

2.2.1. Hazard Assessment

Hazard is conceptualised as the probability of occurrence of two physical climate events - drought and flood.
• Drought: This study assessed meteorological droughts using the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI).
McKee et al. (1993) introduced the SPI as the most common and widely used method to evaluate drought
occurrences. It provides a comprehensive account of the probabilities associated with both wet and dry
events. Numerous studies have validated its simplicity, flexible adaptivity at different temporal and spatial
scales along with its efficacy in identifying, monitoring, and predicting drought occurrences and their
severity (WMO 2012; WMO & GWP, 2016; Kirono et al., 2020; Verma et al.,2022; Verma et al., 2023;
Sharma-IMD, n.d.).
This assessment utilised gridded precipitation data from the IMD with a spatial resolution of 0.25 x 0.25
degrees, spanning 1970–2019 (50 years). District-wise, monthly precipitation was extracted from this
dataset, which served as input data for calculating the SPI-6.

The SPI 6 assesses precipitation anomalies over 6 months, which is crucial for understanding how
variations in rainfall affect stream flows and reservoir levels. It provides insights into short-term impacts
on meteorological and agricultural conditions (over 6 months) and longer-term influences on hydrological
systems, including streamflow and groundwater, essential for sustainable water management.

The SPI-6 values were used to categorise the severity of drought conditions into three levels: moderate,
severe, and extreme. The Drought Hazard Index (DHI) was calculated by assigning weights to different

29
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

drought categories. Each weighted category was then subdivided into specific ratings based on the
probability of occurrence for each category. (Shahid and Behrawan, 2008; Wang & Sun, 2023). A high DHI
for a district indicates rainfall anomalies and deviations in rainfall (in terms of rainfall reduction) from its
long-term mean. This approach helps identify districts that have become drier over the past five decades
(1970–2019).

• Flood: The susceptibility of a particular area to flood hazards was systematically assessed through the
integration of GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques (González-Arqueros et al., 2018;
Mahmoud & Gan, 2018a, 2018b; Das, 2020; Dash & Sar, 2020; Chen, 2022; Gupta & Dixit, 2022).
A comprehensive examination of nine key flood conditioning factors (FCFs) was conducted, viz. slope,
elevation, drainage density, soil texture, Topographic Wetness Index (TWI), SPI (probability of occurrence
of severe and extreme wet events), distance from the river, geomorphology, and Land Use Land Cover
(LULC). It was followed by constructing a geospatial database of these thematic layers within the GIS.

These factors and layers collectively represent the study areas’ topographic, hydrologic, and geologic
characteristics. Using weights derived from the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), a composite flood map
for each state/UT was generated using the weighted overlay technique in GIS.

Subsequently, each district’s Flood Hazard Index (FHI) was computed by taking the proportion of the
area in ‘high’ and ‘very high’ flood susceptibility categories to the district’s total geographical area. This
comprehensive approach considers various factors that influence floods. It employs a rigorous analytical
process, providing a robust foundation for evaluating and depicting flood susceptibility.

2.2.2. Hazard-specific exposure assessment

Exposure is conceptualised as the ‘presence of people and livelihoods’ in ‘places and settings that could be
adversely affected’ by flood and drought (IPCC, 2014). Given that the agricultural sector is particularly susceptible
to these hazards, indicators such as population density and the percentage of land under agriculture (for flood)
and rainfed agricultural land (for drought) are considered indicators of exposure.

30
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Table 2.2: Construction and Rationale for Choice of Flood and Drought Exposure Indicators and Data
Sources

Indicators Construction Rationale for selection Sources

Rainfed agriculture is susceptible to the

vagaries of weather. Lack of irrigation
The area indicates a lack of adaptive capacity to
under rainfed Net sown area - net mitigate the impacts of climate risks, Ministry of
agriculture irrigated area)/net sown leading to increased crop loss and income Communication
(Drought area (2020–21) of households dependent on rainfed (n.d.)
exposure) agriculture.
(Rani et al., 2011).

[(Net area sown +

Proportion of current fallow + fallow Agriculture is India’s primary source of
land under lands other than current livelihood. The sector is largely rainfed and Ministry of
agriculture fallow + culturable sensitive to climate variability and weather Communication
wasteland + land under extremes. Floods’ impact on agricultural (n.d.) and
(Flood miscellaneous tree lands increases food insecurity, making NABARD (n.d.)
exposure) crops) / Geographical them more vulnerable to climate change.
area)] (in sq. km) (2022)

Population This indicates the population exposed to

density4 drought and flood in the given geographical
Total population / Dhar (2022) and
(Both flood area. The more a population is exposed to
geographical area District websites
and drought an event, the more vulnerable the system
exposure) will be; thus, there will be a high risk.

2.2.3. Hazard-specific vulnerability assessment

Vulnerability is a system property influenced by several biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional factors.
Our study incorporated specific indicators to encapsulate these factors.
These include the proportion of net sown area under horticulture, crop insurance coverage, variability in food
grain yields, the proportion of marginal and small landholdings, multidimensional poverty index, forest area
per 100 rural population, female literacy, the ratio of livestock to human population, road density, health
infrastructure, and a composite MGNREGA index.

4. For the revised values of population, the percentage growth rate of population is calculated, based on population data from the 2011 Census and
the IIPS 2020 for all districts. For the newly formed and missing districts, the population numbers have been taken from respective district websites
(if applicable) and from other government sources. We then multiplied this population by the percent growth rate of the population in the parent
district. Likewise, for the bifurcated and parent districts, the population of newly formed districts was deducted from the population of the parent
district. This value was revised by adding the percent growth rate of population in the respective parent districts.

31
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Table 2.3: Construction and Rationale for Choice of Vulnerability Indicators and Data Source

Indicators Construction Rationale for selection Sources

Calculated using
the indicators of
MPI captures the standard of living, health,
standard of living,
Multidimensional and education. Climate change and poverty
health and education NITI Aayog
Poverty Index are dynamically associated and affected
by assigning equal (2023)
(MPI) through several pathways. (Leichenko &
weights that are
Silva, 2014)
further based on 12
sub-indicators (2023)
Marginal and small landholder farmers
experience immediate hardship in the face
of any climatic hazard. They cannot make https://
Proportion Marginal + small
adequate decisions about when to sow, what inputsurvey.
of marginal landholdings) /
to grow, and how to time inputs, along with dacnet.nic.in/
and small Total landholdings
low adaptive capacity (Sathyan et al., 2018). databasehome.
landholdings (hectares (2016–17)
They also find it difficult to cope with high aspx
food price fluctuations in the same (Aryal et
al., 2020).
(Crop Production
Statistics
Information
System, 2006–
Coefficient of High variability in crop yields indicates
2018); Kerala
Variation (Standard fluctuations in agroclimatic conditions. The
State Planning
Deviation/ agriculture sector is susceptible to climate
Yield variability of Board, 2006–
Arithmetic Mean) fluxes and remarkably variable rainfall
food grains 2018; Odisha
of the major food (delayed rainfall, dry spells, drought, extreme
University of
grains over a specific rainfall, and floods), and this indicator
Agriculture and
period (2006–2018) captures this sensitivity. (Davis et al., 2019).
Technology
(2013–14); Kerala
et al. (2017);
(Abraham, 2019)
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)
A composite index is an alternative source of income and
is formed by taking helps build adaptive capacity, particularly
the average of in dealing with unforeseen hazards (Adam,
normalised values 2014). It acts as a safety net by providing any
of 4 indicators adult household member registered under
Composite (Average person the scheme with 100 days of non-climate
MGNREGA index days per household sensitive wage labour a year and 150 days
employed, wage rate in case of hazards such as droughts, floods,
per day, women’s cyclones, and hailstones. This provides
participation, funds households with a menial but essential
utilisation) (2014– source of additional income to help them
2023) tide over the impacts of hazards. This index
also reflects the participation of women in
the labour force.

32
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Indicators Construction Rationale for selection Sources

The literacy rate has a direct relation to the Ministry of
Percentage of
Female literacy reduction of vulnerability. As the number of Health and
literate women (15–
rate literate women increases, better livelihood Family Welfare
49 years) (2019–20)
methods will be adopted (Barua et al., 2019). (2021a)
Forests are an important source of
The total area of alternative livelihood and food through the
Ministry of
forest in sq. km is extraction of non-timber forest products
Forest area Environment,
divided by 100 rural (NTFPs). They also provide essential
per 100 rural Forest and
populations. ecosystem services that are vital for the
population Climate Change
sustainable productivity of rural economies
(2021–2020) (2021)
and build adaptive capacity (Barua et al.,
2019).
The sum of the
Access to functional healthcare
number of functional Ministry of
Health infrastructure is essential for the overall
health centres Health and
infrastructure health and well-being of a community
(Sub- centres, PHCs, Family Welfare
(per 100 sq. km) (Indian Himalayas Climate Adaptation
CHCs) per 100 sq. km (2021b)
Programme (Barua et al., 2019).
(2021)
Total number Livestock is an alternate source of income/
of livestock, asset. Income earned from livestock can
equivalence applied/ Ministry of
compensate for agricultural loss due to
Livestock to human population Fisheries, Animal
climate events. It is also an essential asset
human ratio Husbandry, and
that can be sold during distress. Thus,
(2019–2020) Dairying (2019)
livestock helps compensate for loss and
reduce vulnerability. (Barua et al., 2019).
(Crop area insured
Crop insurance helps farming households
under Pradhan
mitigate floods and drought losses,
Mantri Fasal Ministry of
Proportion of enhancing their adaptive capacity (Swain,
Bima Yojana and Agriculture &
area under crop 2014). The risk and insurance market to
Weather-based Crop Farmers’ Welfare
insurance (2022) promote adaptation to climate change in the
Insurance Scheme/ (n.d.)
agriculture sector is still not fully developed
net sown area) *100
in South-Asian countries (Aryal et al., 2020).
(2021)
Horticulture trees are hardy and more
resilient to climate variations than
Net sown area under agricultural field crops. They provide Ministry of
Proportion net horticulture/ net alternate income sources for agriculture. Agriculture &
sown area under sown area (total) Once established, they are far less sensitive Farmers’ Welfare
horticulture
(2017–18/2021) to the impacts of climate risks, remarkably (2018)
rainfall variability and droughts. (Barua et al.,
2019).
Transport becomes crucial during extreme
weather events (Ebinger & Vandycke, 2015).
This indicator represents accessibility and
The sum of the
connectivity, which are essential in regions
length of surface
exposed to climate and disaster risks to allow
Road density road (in km)/ total OpenStreetMap
for relocation and provide support services.
geographical area (in
It also implies a region’s overall development
sq. km) (2023/2020)
because better connectivity comes with
better access to markets, essential services,
the potential for industrialisation, etc.

33
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

2.2.4. Calculation of risk index

All exposure and vulnerability indicator values are normalised based on the max-min principle. The arithmetic
means of the normalised values are used as Exposure Index (EI) and Vulnerability Index (VI), respectively (Alam
et al., 2022). The risk index is calculated based on the geometric mean of the Hazard Index (HI) (i.e., DHI for
drought and FHI for flood), Hazard-specific Exposure Index (EI) and Vulnerability Index (VI) is given as:

Using the geometric mean is the best way of calculating the average value of components in ratios. Various
important global indicators, such as the Human Development Index (UNDP, 2021), are calculated using a similar
normalisation method and taking the geometric mean).

2.3. Categorisation of districts based on flood and drought hazard

Districts are categorised with natural breaks based on their flood and drought risk indices. This classification
identifies breaks in the data with significant differences between adjacent values, indicating natural groupings or
clusters within the dataset. Natural breaks identify meaningful risk categories compared to other classification
methods like equal interval or quantile.
In this study, we have categorised risk as ‘Very high’, ‘High’, ‘Medium’, ‘Low’ and ‘Very Low’ to reflect the
relative ranking of districts.

34
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

PART II:
District-level Flood and Drought
Risk Maps for India and the
States and Union Territories

35
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

3. District-level flood and drought risk: All-India mapping

In our previous endeavour, we developed a district-level vulnerability map for India (Dasgupta et al., 2021).
That map identified highly vulnerable districts where intervention would be required in anticipation of
climate change. Since vulnerability indicators are closely associated with development indicators, addressing
vulnerability creates a win-win situation for the government.
Allocation of adaptation funds in vulnerable districts, especially in sectors that act as drivers of vulnerability,
creates a preparedness for a changing climate condition and results in overall resilience. Vulnerability
assessments are vital in financial allocations and have their own merits. However, assessing climate risk is
a natural progression towards developing a better understanding of the relative positions of districts with
respect to the probability of occurrence of hazard, exposure and vulnerability.
India’s districts vary significantly in climate patterns, topography, socio-economic conditions, and vulnerability
to climate-related hazards, particularly floods and droughts. Conducting flood and drought risk assessments
at the district level allows for a detailed, administrative understanding of specific risks. These assessments
consider local environmental conditions, infrastructure, livelihoods, and communities. Further, in India, districts
play a crucial role as decision-making units for implementing policies and programmes, especially in disaster
management, development planning, and resource allocation. Hence, flood and drought risk assessment at
the district level will allow decision-makers to tailor adaptation and mitigation strategies according to specific
risks a particular district faces.
In addition, all-India district-level risk mapping involves the spatial identification and visualisation of districts
prone to flood and drought hazards, as well as populations, livelihoods, and assets that are exposed and
vulnerable to these hazards. Risk maps provide valuable insights into where and how flood and drought risks
are distributed across districts in India by analysing historical data, socio-economic factors, and infrastructure
vulnerabilities.
Once high-risk districts and factors driving flood and drought risks are identified through risk mapping,
policymakers, planners, and stakeholders can prioritise resources and interventions more effectively. This
ensures that limited resources are directed towards the most vulnerable districts and populations, where they
are most needed. By proactively addressing flood and drought risks in high-risk districts, the impacts of climate
change can be minimised.
Overall, district-level flood and drought risk mapping for India serves as a vital tool for informed decision-
making. It enables policymakers and practitioners to prioritise actions, allocate resources efficiently, and
implement targeted interventions that enhance resilience and reduce the adverse impacts of climate change
on communities.

3.1. Indicators of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability

As discussed in Section 2, the flood risk is determined as an interaction of flood hazard, exposure, and
vulnerability. Flood hazard is calculated through the integration of GIS and MCDA techniques where slope,
elevation, drainage density, soil texture, Topographic Wetness Index (TWI), SPI (probability of occurrence of
severe and extreme wet events), distance from the river, geomorphology, and LULC were considered. The SPI-6
is used to understand the deviation of precipitation from the long-term average.
An area is considered under the risk of drought hazard if precipitation systematically falls below the long-term
average. The indicators of flood exposure are population density and the proportion of area under agriculture.
Drought exposure is calculated based on population density and area under rainfed agriculture.
Vulnerability is a system property. Its indicators are MPI, the proportion of marginal and small landholdings,
yield variability of food grains, the composite MGNREGA index, the female literacy rate, forest area per 100
rural population, health infrastructure available per 100 square kilometres, the livestock-to-human ratio, the
proportion of area under crop insurance, the proportion of net sown area under horticulture, and road density.

36
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

The Flood Hazard Index (FHI)/ Drought Hazard Index (DHI), Flood Exposure Index (FEI)/ Drought Exposure Index
(DEI) and Vulnerability Index (VI) obtained are then combined in the following formula to arrive at a Flood Risk
Index (FRI) and Drought Risk Index (DRI). Districts are categorised according to their risk indices.

3.2. Components of flood and drought risk indices – hazard, exposure

and vulnerability
3.2.1. Flood Hazard
The district-level5 Figures 3.1, 3.2, and 3.5 present flood hazard, exposure, and vulnerability maps for India.
Figure 3.6 presents an overall flood hazard map. The flood hazard index across districts varies from a negligible
positive value (close to zero) to 0.84. This large range for flood hazard is consistent with the representation of
flood maps prepared by the NDMA (n.d.), BMTPC (2019), IMD (2022), and NRSC (2023).
These maps (not detailed at the district level, though) point out the presence of flood-prone locations in the
Brahmaputra and Ganga river basins in the Indo-Gangetic Brahmaputra plains in North and North-East India.
This is followed by the northwestern regions of west-flowing rivers such as the Narmada and Tapi, Central
India, and the Deccan region, which has major east-flowing rivers like the Mahanadi, Krishna, and Cauvery. Our
map also shows the presence of multiple very high to high flood hazard-prone districts in Assam, West Bengal,
Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, coastal parts of Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, and
Kerala, and parts of Gujarat located in the above-mentioned geographical regions.
However, it may be re-emphasised that all index values depict the relative position of a district in comparison
to others. A lower value of a flood hazard index does not necessarily mean that the location will have no
probability of flood occurrence. What sets the current study apart is that it goes beyond hazard analysis
and mapping. It aims to understand exposure and vulnerability characteristics and the interplay of the three
components of risk, resulting in differential impacts.

5. It is better not to consider the risk obtained from 7 major cities (going by 2014 data). These are Ahmedabad, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Pune,
Bangalore, and Mumbai. This also applies to a few Union Territories: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and
Diu, Delhi (NCT), Ladakh, Lakshadweep, and Puducherry. These cities and UTs have very different characteristics in terms of income, infrastructure,
population density, etc. and may not be considered together with other districts.

37
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

3.2.2. Flood Exposure

The flood exposure index varies from a negligible positive value to 0.97. Many districts in the Indo-Gangetic
plain, especially Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal, exhibit a high exposure to floods due to their dense
population and agricultural lands. Exposure is shallow in districts in Arunachal Pradesh on account of its very
thin population density, along with a few districts in states of the Indian Himalayan Region (such as Lahaul and
Spiti in Himachal Pradesh, None in Manipur, and North Sikkim).

3.2.3. Drought Hazard

The drought hazard index across districts in India varies from 0.07 to 0.68. Unlike the concentrated flood
hazard, drought is spread out more evenly in districts across the country. Sixty-five districts under the very
high drought-hazard category (0.68–0.47) are located in 22 states, including Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Punjab, Tamil
Nadu, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Assam, Kerala, Nagaland and Chhattisgarh, hosting more
than one such district.
We observed a dearth of national-level drought hazard mapping. Hence we compared our results with data
from publications such as Chuphal et al. (2024). They found a similar spread in the distribution of the frequency
of severe and exceptional droughts that had occurred in India from 1901 to 2021.

3.2.4. Drought exposure

The drought exposure index ranges between a nominal positive value and 0.98. The reason behind a very low
exposure in certain regions is, again, formed by a very thin population density. On the other hand, the very
high drought-exposed districts (DEI ranging between 0.65 and 0.98) are found to be primarily located in the
geographical belt of Bihar, West Bengal, and Jharkhand, followed by Assam and Kerala because of a very high
population density there. However, many districts in Maharashtra are also highly exposed to drought due to
their high dependence on rainfed agriculture.

3.2.5. Vulnerability
The vulnerability index varies from 0.294 to 0.793, consistent with our earlier pan-India assessment (Dasgupta
et al., 2021). Again, this emphasises that all districts in India are vulnerable, and the drivers may vary. Despite
very low index values for hazard and exposure in some districts, it should be emphasised that no district in
India has near-zero vulnerability. Continued efforts to handle this source of risk remain important, not only for
climate resilience but also for overall development. Districts with high vulnerability (0.67 – 0.793) are mostly
found in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Assam. Again, this shows a spatial distribution
similar to our previous vulnerability assessment. Still, it needs to be kept in mind that this does not mean that
the rest of the states do not have districts without high vulnerability.

38
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

3.3. District-level flood risk in India

Flood risk arises at the intersection of flood hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Figure 3.6. represents a district-
level flood risk map of India. The flood risk index range is 0.015 – 0.688. It is divided into five categories: Very
High (0.440 – 0.688; 51 districts), High (0.284 – 0.439; 118 districts), Medium (0.194 – 0.283; 216 districts), Low
(0.122 – 0.193; 205 districts), and Very Low (0.015 – 0.121; 108 districts). Of the 51 districts in the ‘Very High’
risk category, 24 are in Assam, 14 in West Bengal, and the remainder in Manipur, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir,
Odisha, Uttarakhand, and Kerala.

3.4. District-level drought risk in India

The drought risk map is presented in Figure 3.7 where, similar to flood risk, drought risk is conceptualised
at the intersection of drought hazard, drought exposure and vulnerability. The calculated drought risk index
ranges from 0.042 to 0.644. The range is divided into five categories: Very High (0.510 – 0.644; 91 districts),
High (0.450 – 0.509; 187 districts), Medium (0.396 – 0449; 176 districts), Low (0.329 – 0.395; 165 districts), and
Deficient (0.042 – 0.328; 79 districts). More than 90% of districts in the Very High category (83 out of 91) are
located in Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra.

3.5. Dual risk of flood and drought

Several districts are experiencing both flood and drought risk. Of the top 50 districts with a high flood risk and
the top 50 with a high drought risk, 11 districts are at dual risk of flood and drought. Districts facing this type
of risk are Patna in Bihar; Alappuzha in Kerala; Charaideo, Dibrugarh, Sibsagar, South Salmara-Mankachar, and
Golaghat in Assam; Kendrapara in Odisha; and Murshidabad, Nadia, and Uttar Dinajpur in West Bengal. While
Alappuzha is flood-prone (Binoy et al., 2023), it experienced multiple drought events, especially in 2018, and
was declared a ‘drought-hit’ by the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority (The Hindu, 2018). The districts
mentioned above in Assam are susceptible to floods due to their proximity to the Brahmaputra river and
positive rainfall anomalies during the monsoon in some places (Bora et al., 2023; District Disaster Management
Plan Charaideo, 2024; Saharia et al., 2024). However, these districts have experienced droughts in the last few
decades due to erratic rainfall, especially in August and September (Parida & Oinam, 2015; Singh et al., 2024).
In West Bengal, Murshidabad, Nadia, and Uttar Dinajpur we experienced flooding and a decreasing trend
in annual and monsoon precipitation in specific locations (Kumar et al., 2023). Patna experiences localised
intense rainfall events leading to floods, while long dry spells were recorded in July 2023, with 43% less than
the average rainfall (The Pioneer, 2024). Likewise, in Kendrapara, flood and drought events have increased due
to highly variable rainfall, high water deficit, and frequent rainfall failure (Banerjee, 2016).

3.6. Drivers of flood and drought risk

The study’s findings clearly bring out two things: a) Flood and drought hazards are one of the driving forces
behind the overall risk. b) Such risk can be amplified, even when the hazard probability is low, in the presence
of high exposure and vulnerability.
This, in turn, highlights the importance of short to medium-term development policies with adaptation benefits
that can effectuate a significant risk reduction through a vulnerability reduction and some of the elements of
exposure.
This becomes evident in Figures 3.8 and 3.9. They identify the contribution of hazard, exposure and vulnerability
in the overall flood and drought risk respectively, for the top 50 risk-prone districts. The two Figures show that
the contribution of drivers varied across districts - both in case of flood and drought.
For example, if we consider Patna (Bihar) and Majuli (Assam) in Figure 3.8, their flood risk indices are
comparable – 0.45 for Patna and 0.47 for Majuli. However, the profiles of these two districts are completely
different in terms of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. While the flood hazard index is very high in Majuli
(0.84), it is much lower in Patna (0.18). At the same time, very high exposure (Flood Exposure Index = 0.84)
owing to dense population and high vulnerability (VI = 0.62) elevated the flood-risk of Patna to a level as high

39
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

as Majuli. It is worth noting that while Majuli is highly flood-prone, it has relatively lower exposure (0.27) and
vulnerability (0.46) than Patna.
Similarly, Gopalgunj in Bihar and Kottayam in Kerala (Figure 3.9) have comparable drought risks, with a drought
risk in Gopalgunj of 0.55 and in Kottayam 0.56. But the hazard index is much higher in Kottayam compared to
Gopalgunj. The former is operating at this level of risk, even with a drought hazard index at 0.55 compared to
0.33 in Gopalgunj.
The exposure indices in these two districts are also comparable (0.71 in Gopalgunj and 0.75 in Kottayam),
making it a perfect illustration of high probability of climate hazards being neutralised by low vulnerability. The
vulnerability index of Kottayam is at 0.43 while the same for Gopalgunj is 0.71.
The flood and drought risk assessment underscores the importance of understanding the drivers of these
climate events to design targeted interventions. A district with a low flood hazard but high exposure and
vulnerability may suffer significant losses, despite a fewer number of floods or floods of lower magnitude due
to a limited coping capacity.
Conversely, districts with a high flood hazard but low exposure and vulnerability demonstrate the value of
adaptation and resilience building – leading to a higher coping capacity that helps buffer hazards. For hazard
mitigation is possible only in the long term and requires global efforts.
Understanding risk at the nexus of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability is crucial, because it reveals that high-
hazard proneness alone does not equate to high risk; it is the interaction with exposure and vulnerability that
triggers risk and determines its extent.
Flood and drought risk assessment highlights the need to go beyond environmental factors leading to these
two events, since social, economic, and political factors shape vulnerabilities and resilience. While mitigating
hazards is crucial in the long run, enhancing adaptive capacity in the short and medium term is vital to shield
communities from climate-related hazards. Integrating human-centric and interdisciplinary interventions
into flood and drought risk assessment facilitates the development of holistic, inclusive strategies fostering
sustainable development and bolstering community resilience against climate change.

40
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Figure 3.1: District-level Flood Hazard Map of India (for the period 1970–2019)

41
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Figure 3.2: District-level Flood Exposure Map of India

42
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Figure 3.3: District-level Drought Hazard Map of India (for the period 1970–2019)

43
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Figure 3.4: District-level Drought Exposure Map of India

44
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Figure 3.5: District-level Vulnerability Map of India

45
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Figure 3.6: District-level Flood Risk Map of India (for the period 1970–2019)

46
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Figure 3.7: District-level Drought Risk Map of India (for the period 1970–2019)

47
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Figure 3.8: Contribution of flood hazard, exposure and vulnerability to overall flood risk for 50
districts in India with the highest flood risk index

48
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Figure 3.9: Contribution of drought hazard, exposure, and vulnerability to overall drought risk for 50
districts in India with the highest drought risk index

49
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

4. District-level flood and drought risk: Mapping for

Indian states and UTs
India’s vast and diverse landscape necessitates state-level flood and drought risk assessments to gain localised
insights into climate-related hazards, vulnerabilities, and exposures. These assessments enable tailored
adaptation and mitigation strategies to address specific challenges different regions and communities face
within each state. By conducting district-level flood and drought risk assessments, states can pinpoint areas
and populations most at risk, facilitating targeted interventions and resource allocation where they are
most needed. This ensures that adaptation and resilience-building measures are prioritised and effectively
implemented to address the unique vulnerabilities of each locality.
Further, the findings from state-level risk assessments can inform the development of state-specific policies,
plans, and strategies to manage flood and drought risks. This alignment with local contexts, priorities, and
needs enhances the relevance and effectiveness of interventions, ensuring they resonate with each state’s
specific challenges.
Building state capacity was paramount to our project. State-level flood and drought risk assessments
empowered state representatives to engage actively in the process, identifying key indicators relevant to their
state and contributing to the development of common indicators. This collaborative approach resulted in
the strong involvement of states in creating state-specific flood and drought risk maps at the district level, a
significant outcome of our engagement.

4.1. District-level flood and drought risk: Mapping for Indian states and
UTs
Flood Risk Map - Andhra Pradesh Drought Risk Map - Andhra Pradesh

50
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Flood Risk Map - Arunachal Pradesh Drought Risk Map - Arunachal Pradesh

Flood Risk Map - Assam Drought Risk Map - Assam

Flood Risk Map - Bihar Drought Risk Map - Bihar

51
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Flood Risk Map - Chhattisgarh Drought Risk Map - Chhattisgarh

Flood Risk Map - Goa Drought Risk Map - Goa

Flood Risk Map - Gujarat Drought Risk Map - Gujarat

52
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Flood Risk Map - Haryana Drought Risk Map - Haryana

Flood Risk Map - Himachal Pradesh Drought Risk Map - Himachal Pradesh

Flood Risk Index - Jammu and Kashmir Drought Risk Index - Jammu and Kashmir

53
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Flood Risk Index - Jharkhand Drought Risk Index - Jharkhand

Flood Risk Index - Karnataka Drought Risk Index - Karnataka

Flood Risk Index - Kerala Drought Risk Index - Kerala

54
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Flood Risk Index - Madhya Pradesh Drought Risk Index - Madhya Pradesh

Flood Risk Index - Maharashtra Drought Risk Index - Maharashtra

Flood Risk Index - Manipur Drought Risk Index - Manipur

55
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Flood Risk Index - Meghalaya Drought Risk Index - Meghalaya

Flood Risk Index - Mizoram Drought Risk Index - Mizoram

Flood Risk Index - Nagaland Drought Risk Index - Nagaland

56
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Flood Risk Index - Odisha Drought Risk Index - Odisha

Flood Risk Index - Punjab Drought Risk Index - Punjab

Flood Risk Index - Rajasthan Drought Risk Index - Rajasthan

57
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Flood Risk Index - Sikkim Drought Risk Index - Sikkim

Flood Risk Index - Tamil Nadu Drought Risk Index - Tamil Nadu

Flood Risk Index - Telangana Drought Risk Index - Telangana

58
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Flood Risk Index - Tripura Drought Risk Index - Tripura

Flood Risk Index - Uttar Pradesh Drought Risk Index - Uttar Pradesh

Flood Risk Index - Uttarakhand Drought Risk Index - Uttarakhand

59
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Flood Risk Index - West Bengal Drought Risk Index - West Bengal

60
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

PART III:
Utility and Way Forward

61
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

5. Utility and Way Forward

5.1. Utility of the report
Comprehensive Risk Mapping
• The development of risk maps for floods and droughts facilitates comparative analysis of districts within a
state based on standardised indicators. These maps encompass flood and drought hazards, the degree of
exposure to hazards, and overall vulnerability, fostering a holistic understanding of climate risks.
Determining Flood and Drought Risk Components
• Helps uncover the relative contribution of flood and/or drought hazards, exposure, and vulnerability
within each district, facilitating identification of critical indicators that policymakers can utilise to prioritise
interventions to mitigate or buffer the impacts of specific climate hazards.
Enhancing Government Preparedness and Policy Guidance
• Both state and central governments confront mounting pressure to deliver drought and flood assistance,
driven by the rising frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Risk assessments such as these,
enable state governments to prepare proactively and allocate resources, staff and design programmes,
fostering resilience in districts most affected by floods and droughts.
District-level Flood and Drought Risk Maps to Facilitate Prioritisation and Optimised Resource Allocation
• Hazard-specific risk profiles at district level help identify districts requiring urgent attention.
• Enable policymakers to identify entry points and interventions, and focus efforts and resources on critical
districts to buffer and/or mitigate the impacts of specific climate hazards.
• Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation and Mobilising Climate Finance
• Provide valuable insights to policymakers for integrating into the State Action Plan on Climate Change
(SAPCC). Periodic updates of these assessments based on evolving hazard occurrences ensure strategies
remain relevant and effective, and are aligned with the goal of sustainable and adaptive governance.
• Facilitate the pursuit of climate finance by highlighting the urgency and significance of addressing identified
risks, for implementation of adaptation strategies addressing climate hazards in various sectors.
• Risk indices, rankings, and maps support the preparation of adaptation projects, enhancing the credibility
of funding proposals for national and international agencies, particularly in identified hotspot districts.
Community Empowerment
Empowers local communities and elected representatives to advocate for compensation or insurance measures
in response to high drought and flood-related losses. Strengthens community resilience by fostering proactive
measures at grassroots level.

62
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

5.2. Way forward

There exists significant potential for expanding risk assessment efforts at both national and state levels,
leveraging the established framework and bolstered capacities developed during the current phase. They
include:
1. Sector-Specific Risk Index Development: This involves the creation of risk indices tailored to specific
sectors such as agriculture, horticulture, or coastal activities at state level. One specific example could be
LULC and varying rainfall patterns on risk.

2. Urban Risk Assessment: Assessing flood and drought risks in districts, towns, and cities, with a focus on
water supply.

3. Standardised Methodology Application: Utilising a common methodology to assess risks associated with
various hazards like landslides, heat stress, and compound or cascading extreme events.

4. Risk Assessment under Future Climate: Addressing the imperative of conducting risk assessments under
different climate change scenarios, recognising the evolving nature of environmental challenges.

This refined approach encompasses a diverse range of risk assessments, ensuring a comprehensive and
adaptable framework to address various hazards and scenarios across different geographic scales.

63
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

References

Abraham, M. P. (2019). Paddy Cultivation in Kerala: A Trend Analysis of Area, Production and Productivity
at District Level (1980–81 to 2012–13). Retrieved from https://keralaeconomy.com/admin/pdfs/Paddy%20
cultivation%20in%20Kerala.pdf
Adam, H. N. (2014). Mainstreaming Adaptation in India – the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act and Climate Change. Climate and Development, 7(2), 142–152.
Adger, W. N., Brown, I., & Surminski, S. (2018). Advances in Risk Assessment for Climate Change Adaptation
Policy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376: 20180106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0106
Alam, M. K., Dasgupta, S., Barua, A., & Ravindranath, N. H. (2022) Assessing Climate Relevant Vulnerability
of the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR): A District Level Analysis. Natural Hazards, 112:1395–1421. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11069-022-05233-x
Aryal, J. P., Sapkota, T. B., Khurana, R., Chhetri, A. K., Rahut, D. B., & Jat, M. L. (2020). Climate Change and
Agriculture in South Asia: Adaptation Options in Smallholder Production Systems. Environment, Development
and Sustainability, 22, 5045–5075.
Banerjee, S. (2016). Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods and Fisheries: A Case Study of Rajnagar Block in
Kendrapada District of Odisha, India. https://generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk/deccma/wp-content/uploads/
sites/181/2017/07/Sumanta-Banerjee_DECCMA-INDIA-Mahanadi-Delta.pdf
Barua, A., Dasgupta, S., Ravindranath, N.H., Bhaduri, R., Gulati, V., Alam, M. K., Sanyal, K., Esteves, T.,
Murthy, I. K., & Sharma, J. (2019). Climate Vulnerability Assessment for the Indian Himalayan Region
Using a Common Framework. https://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/IHCAP_Climate%20Vulnerability%20
Assessment_30Nov2018_Final_aw.pdf
Barua, A., Dasgupta, S., Gulati, V., Changakakati, T., Bhaduri, R., Vyas, S., Alam, M. K., Sanyal, K., Esteves, T.,
Murthy, I. K., Ravindranath, N. H., & Sharma, J. (2021). How Vulnerable are India’s Himalayan Region States to
Climate Change? Economic and Political Weekly – Engage, 56(11).
Basu, R., & Ostro, B. D. (2008). A Multicounty Analysis Identifying the Populations Vulnerable to Mortality
Associated with High Ambient Temperature in California. American Journal of Epidemiology, 168(6), 632–637.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn170
Binoy, S., Jyoma, J. P., Adarsh, S., Siddik, A., Muhammed, Nourani, V., Alisha, A., & Sreeshma, T. (2023).
Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping under Compound Hazards: A Copula Approach for Tropical Coastal District
of Alappuzha, India. Journal of Hydro-environment Research, 46, 60–71, ISSN 1570-6443. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jher.2022.11.004
BMTPC. (2019). Vulnerability Atlas of India. Third Edition. https://bmtpc.org/DataFiles/CMS/file/Publication/
VAI_3rd2019.pdf
Bora, S. L., Das, J., Bhuyan, K., & Hazarika, P. J. (2023). Flood Susceptibility Mapping Using GIS and Multi-
criteria Decision Analysis in Dibrugarh District of Assam, North-East India. In: Das, J., & Bhattacharya, S.K.
(eds.). Monitoring and Managing Multi-hazards. GIScience and Geo-environmental Modelling. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15377-8_4
Carrao, H., Naumann, G., & Barbosa, P. (2016). Mapping Global Patterns of Drought Risk: An Empirical
Framework Based on Sub-national Estimates of Hazard, Exposure and Vulnerability. Global Environmental
Change. 39, 108–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.012

64
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Chen, Y. (2022). Flood Hazard Zone Mapping Incorporating Geographic Information System (GIS) and Multi-
Criteria Analysis (MCA) Techniques. Journal of Hydrology.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128268
Chuphal, D. S., Kushwaha, A. P., Aadhar, S., & Mishra, V. (2024). Drought Atlas of India, 1901–2020. Scientific
Data 11(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02856-y
Crop Production Statistics Information System (2006–2018). https://aps.dac.gov.in/APY/Public_Report1.aspx
Das, S. (2020). Flood Susceptibility Mapping of the Western Ghat Coastal Belt Using Multi-Source Geospatial
Data and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 20, 100379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rsase.2020.100379
Dasgupta, S., Barua, A., Vyas, S., & Ravindranath, N. H. (2021). Climate Vulnerability Assessment for
Adaptation Planning in India Using a Common Framework. Department of Science and Technology, GOI.
Retrieved December 12, 2023 from https://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/Full%20Report%20%281%29.pdf
Dash, P., & Sar, J. (2020). Identification and Validation of Potential Flood Hazard Area Using GIS-Based Multi-
Criteria Analysis and Satellite Data-Derived Water Index.
Journal of Flood Risk Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12620
Davis, K. F., Chhatre, A., Rao, N. D., Singh, D., & Defries, R. (2019). Sensitivity of Grain Yields to Historical
Climate Variability in India. Environmental Research Letters.
Dhar, M. (2022). Projection of District-Level Annual Population by Quinquennial Age-Group and Sex from
2012 to 2031 in India. IIPS, Mumbai, India.
District Disaster Management Plan, Charaideo. (2024). https://asdma.assam.gov.in/sites/default/files/
swf_utility_folder/departments/asdma_revenue_uneecopscloud_com_oid_70/menu/document/
charaideo_2024_25.pdf
District Disaster Management Plan (2023–24). Government of West Bengal, Office of the District Magistrate,
Nadia, West Bengal. http://wbdmd.gov.in/writereaddata/uploaded/DP/DPNadia34856.pdf
(Accessed 9 May 2024).
Dubey, A., Swami, D., Gupta, V., & Joshi, N. (2023). From the Peaks to the Plains: Investigating the Role of
Elevation in Governing Drought Dynamics over the Indus River Basin. Atmospheric Research, Vol. 291(2023).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2023.106824
Ebinger, J. O., & Vandycke, N. (2015). Moving Toward Climate-Resilient Transport:
The World Bank’s Experience from Building Adaptation into Programs.
Washington DC: World Bank
Frumkin, H., & McMichael, A. J. (2008). Climate Change and Public Health: Thinking, Communicating, Acting.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.019
Germanwatch. (2021). Global Climate Risk Index – 2021: Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events?
Weather-Related Loss Events in 2019 and 2000 to 2019. https://www.germanwatch.org/en/19777
González-Arqueros, M., Mendoza, M. E., Bocco, G., & Castillo, B. S. (2018). Flood Susceptibility in
Rural Settlements in Remote Zones: The Case of a Mountainous Basin in the Sierra-Costa region of
Michoacán, Mexico. Journal of Environmental Management, 685–693. doi: https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.
Jenvman.2018.06.075
Gupta, L., & Dixit, J. (2022). A GIS-based Flood Risk Mapping of Assam, India, Using the MCDA-AHP Approach
at the Regional and Administrative Level. Geocarto International, 37(26), 11867–11899. https://doi.org/10.10
80/10106049.2022.2060329

65
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

IMD. (2022a). Climate Hazards and Vulnerability Atlas of India. https://www.imdpune.gov.in/hazardatlas/

index4.html
IMD (2022b). Summary of Climate Hazards and Vulnerability Atlas of India. https://imdpune.gov.in/
hazardatlas/atlas_summary.html
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,
K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L.L.
White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. https://www.
ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai,
A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell,
E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. In press. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896
IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group
II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D. C.
Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller,
A. Okem, & B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and
New York, NY, USA.
doi: 10.1017/9781009325844
Kerala State Planning Board. (n.d.) 2006–2018. Retrieved from https://spb.kerala.gov.in/en
Kerala State Planning Board. (2017). Economic Review 2017. Retrieved from https://spb.kerala.gov.in/
economic-review/ER2017/web_e/ch21.php?id=2&ch=21
Kirono, D. G., Round, V., Heady, C., Chiew, F. H., & Osbrough, S. (2020). Drought Projections for Australia:
Updated Results and Analysis of Model Simulations. Weather and Climate Extremes, 30, 100280.
Kovats, R. S., & Hajat, S. (2008). Heat Stress and Public Health: A Critical Review.
Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090843
Kumar A., Sankalp, S., & Remesan, R. (2023). Chapter 1 - Spatio Temporal Rainfall Variability and Trend
Analysis over All The Districts of West Bengal during 1980–2021. Developments in Environmental Science, 14,
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-18640-0.00004-3
Leichenko, R., & Silva, J. A. (2014). Climate Change and Poverty: Vulnerability, Impacts, and Alleviation
Strategies. WIREs Climate Change, 5(4), 539–556.
Leis, J.-L., Kienberger, S., 2020. Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment of Floods in Austria: Mapping
Homogenous Regions, Hotspots and Typologies. Sustainability. 12(16), 6458. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12166458
Mahmoud, S. H., & Gan, T. Y. (2018a). Multi-criteria Approach to Develop Flood Susceptibility Maps in
Arid Regions of Middle East. Journal of Cleaner Production, 216–229. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.06.047
Mahmoud, S. H., & Gan, T. Y. (2018b). Urbanisation and Climate Change Implications in Flood Risk
Management: Developing an Efficient Decision Support System for Flood Susceptibility Mapping. Science of
the Total Environment, 152–167. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.282
Malakar, K., Mishra, T., Hari, V., & Karmakar, S. (2021). Risk Mapping of Indian Coastal Districts Using IPCC–
AR5 Framework and Multi-attribute Decision-making Approach.
J. Environ. Manag., 294, 112948.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112948

66
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Malik, S. M., Awan, H., & Khan, N. (2012). Mapping Vulnerability to Climate Change and Its Repercussions on
Human Health in Pakistan. Globalization and Health, 8, 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-8-31
McKee, T. B., Doesken, N. J., & Kleist, J. (1993). The Relationship of Drought Frequency and Duration to Time
Scale. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Applied Climatology, Anaheim, California, 17–22 January
1993. Boston, American Meteorological Society, 179–184.
Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, GOI. (n.d.). Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. Retrieved from
https://pmfby.gov.in/adminStatistics/dashboard
Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare. (2018). Horticultural Statistics at a Glance 2018. Department of
Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers’ Welfare Horticulture Statistics Division, Government of India. https://
nhb.gov.in/statistics/Publication/Horticulture%20Statistics%20at%20a%20Glance-2018.pdf
Ministry of Communication & IT, GOI. (n.d.). Web Based Land Use Statistics Information System. Agriculture
Informatics Division, National Informatics Centre. Retrieved January 19, 2024, from https://www.aps.dac.gov.
in/LUS/Public/Reports.aspx
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, GOI. (2021). Indian State of Forest Report 2021.
Retrieved from https://fsi.nic.in/forest-report-2021-details
Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying, GOI. (2019). Department of Animal Husbandry
and Dairying. 20th Livestock Census. GOI. Retrieved from https://dahd.nic.in/sites/default/filess/Key%20
Results%2BAnnexure%2018.10.2019.pdf
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. (2021a). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) 2019–21. GOI.
https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/NFHS-5_Phase-II_0.pdf
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, GOI. (2021b). Rural Health Statistics 2020–21. Retrieved from https://
main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/rhs20-21_1.pdf
Ministry of Rural Development, GOI. (n.d.). Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
2005. Retrieved November 11, 2023 from https://nreganarep.nic.in/netnrega/MISreport4.aspx
Mujumdar, M., Bhaskar, P., Ramarao, M. V. S., Uppara, U., Goswami, M., Borgaonkar, H., ... & Niyogi, D.
(2020). Droughts and Floods. Assessment of Climate Change over the Indian Region: A Report of the Ministry
of Earth Sciences (MoES), GOI, 117–141.
NABARD, GOI. (n.d.) Potential Linked Credit Plan. Retrieved March 15, 2024, from https://www.nabard.org/
info-centre-state-focus-papers-potentiallinkplans.aspx?cid=641&id=698
NDMA. (n.d.a) National Disaster Management Authority, GOI – Floods. Retrieved November 5, 2023, from
https://ndma.gov.in/Natural-Hazards/Floods
NDMA. (n.d.b). National Disaster Management Authority, GOI – Prime Minister’s Ten Point Agenda on DRR.
Last Retrieved May 2, 2024 from https://ndma.gov.in/Governance/PM-10-Agenda
NIDM & GIZ. (2019). Climate Risk Management Framework for India – Addressing Loss and Damage (L&D).
National Institute Of Disaster Management (NIDM) and DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT FÜR INTERNATIONALE
ZUSAMMENARBEIT (GIZ) GmbH, New Delhi, India. https://nidm.gov.in/PDF/pubs/GIZ_NIDM_Climate%20
RiskManagementFramework.pdf
NIDM. (n.d.). National Institute of Disaster Management, GOI – Disaster Risk Profile. Retrieved November 5,
2023, from https://nidm.gov.in/easindia2014/err/pdf/country_profile/India.pdf
NITI Aayog. (2023). Sustainable Development in The Indian Himalayan Region. [Online]. Available: https://
www.niti.gov.in/sustainable-development-indian-himalayan-region

67
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC). (2023). Flood Affected Area Atlas of India – Satellite based Study.
Version–1 (1998–2022). https://ndem.nrsc.gov.in/documents/downloads/Flood%20Affected%20Area%20
%20Atlas%20of%20India%20-Satellite%20based%20study.pdf
Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology. (2013–14). State Agriculture Plan (SAP) of Odisha. https://
www.rkvy.nic.in/static/SAP/OR/For%20this%20Period(2017-18%20to% 202019-20)/SAP_of_Odisha_Report_
Final.pdf
Oppenheimer, M., Campos, M., Warren, R., Birkmann, J., Luber, G., O’Neill, B., &
Takahashi, K. (2014). Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken,
K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir,
M. Chatterjee, K .L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R.
Mastrandrea, & L. L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA, pp. 1039-1099.
Parida, B. R., & Oinam, B. (2015). Unprecedented Drought in North East India Compared to Western India.
Current Science Association, 109(11). doi:https://www.jstor.org/stable/24906713
Perera, F. P. (2008). Children Are Likely to Suffer Most from Fossil Fuel Addiction. Environmental Health
Perspective, 116(8), 987–990. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11173
Rama Rao, C. A. (2019). Risk and Vulnerability Assessment of Indian Agriculture to Climate Change, ICAR-
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, p.124.
Rani, C. R., Vanaja, M., & Bali, S. K. (2011). Climate Change and Rainfed Agriculture: Rural Development
Perspectives. Journal of Rural Development, 30(4), 411–419.
Roy, B., Khan, M. M., Islam, K. S., Khan, M. U., Mohammed, K. (2021). Integrated Flood Risk Assessment of
the Arial Khan River under Changing Climate Using IPCC AR5 Risk Framework. J. WaterClim. Change. 12(7),
3421–3447. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2021.341.
Saharia et al. (2024). A District Level Flood Severity Index for India. arXiv, e print, Cornell University. https://
arxiv.org/pdf/2405.01602
Sathyan, A. R., Funk, C., Aenis, T., & Breuer, L. (2018). Climate Vulnerability in Rainfed Farming: Analysis from
Indian Watershed. Sustainability, 10(9).
Shah, A., & Malakar, K. (2024). Climate-change-induced Risk Mapping of the Indian Himalayan Districts
Using the Latest IPCC Framework. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 102, 104283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2024.104283.
Shahid, S., & Behrawan, H. (2008). Drought Risk Assessment in the Western Part of Bangladesh. Natural
Hazards, 46, 391–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9191-5
Sharma, A. -IMD (n.d.). Rainfall Based Indices for Drought Monitoring, India Meteorological Department.
www.ncfc.gov.in/downloads/Workshop_drought_16feb2017/SPI%20BEST.pdf
Singh, W. R., Barman, S., Vijayakumar, S. V., Hazarika, N., Kalita, B., & Taggu, A. (2024). Drought Assessment in
the districts of Assam Using Standardized Precipitation Index.
J. Earth Syst. Sci., 133, 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-024-02256-9
Swain, M. (2014). Crop Insurance for Adaptation to Climate Change in India (Working Paper). Asia Research
Centre, London School of Economics & Political Science.
Swiss Re. (2024). Changing. Swiss Re. Climates: The Heat Is (Still) on Hazard Intensification Set to Compound
Economic Losses.

68
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

The Hindu. (2018, March 28). Nine Districts in Kerala to Be Declared Drought Hit.
Retrieved May 9, 2024, from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/nine-districts-in-kerala-to-be-
declared-drought-hit/article23362438.ece
The Pioneer (2024, May 8). Patna – one of most severely flood hit parts of India. Retrieved May 9, 2024, from
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2024/india/patna-one-of-most-severely--
flood-hit-parts-of-india--study.html
Thomas, V. (2017). Climate Change and Natural Disasters: Transforming Economies and Policies for a
Sustainable Future. Routledge, London: ISBN 978-1-138-56735-1. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.
net/10419/191561. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081045
UNDP. (2021). https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2021-22_HDR/hdr2021-22_technical_notes.pdf
Vegad, U., Pokhrel, Y., & Mishra, V. (2024). Flood Risk Assessment for Indian Sub-continental River Basins.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1107–1126.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1107-2024
Verma, A., Vishwakarma, A., Bist, S., Kumar, S., & Bhatla, R. (2023). A Long-term Drought Assessment over
India Using CMIP6 Framework: Present and Future Perspectives. MAUSAM, 74(4), 963–972.
Verma, S., Bhatla, R., Shahi, N. K., & Mall, R. K. (2022). Regional Modulating Behaviour of Indian Summer
Monsoon Rainfall in Context of Spatio-Temporal Variation of Drought and Flood Events. Atmospheric
Research, 274, 106201.
Villani, L., Castelli, G., Piemontese, L., Penna, D., & Bresci, E. (2022). Drought Risk Assessment in
Mediterranean Agricultural Watersheds: A Case Study in Central Italy.
Agric. Water Manag., 271, 107748.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107748
Wang, S., Sun, Q. C., Huang, X., Tao, Y., Dong, C., Das, S., Liu, Y. (2023). Health-integrated Heat Risk
Assessment in Australian Cities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 102(107176).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107176
Wang, T., & Sun, F. (2023). Integrated Drought Vulnerability and Risk Assessment for Future Scenarios: An
Indicator Based Analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 900, 165591.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165591
Wmo, G., & Gwp, G. (2016). Handbook of Drought Indicators and Indices. Geneva: World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) and Global Water Partnership (GWP).
World Meteorological Organization. (2012). Standardized Precipitation Index User, Guide. (M. Svoboda, M.
Hayes & D. Wood). (WMO–No. 1090), Geneva.
Zhang, D., Shi, X., Xu, H., Jing, Q., Pan, X., Liu, T., Wang, H., & Hou, H. (2020). GIS-based Spatial Multi-Index
Model for Flood Risk Assessment in the Yangtze River Basin, China. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 83(106397). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106397

69
 District-level Climate Risk Assessment for India:
Mapping Flood and Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework

Appendix
1. Drought Hazard Index
DHI = (DWm x DRm) + (DWs x DRs) + (DWe x DRe) Eq.1
where DRm= ratings assigned to moderate droughts based on a percentage of occurrence; DWm= weight
scores for moderate drought; DRs = ratings assigned to severe droughts based on a percentage of occurrence;
DWs= weight scores for severe droughts; DRe= ratings assigned to extreme drought based on a percentage of
occurrence; DWe= weight scores for extreme drought.

2. Flood Hazard Index

(Wslope x Slope) + (Welevation x Elevation) + (Wgeomorphology x Geomorphology) + (WDD x DD) +
FHI = (WDR x DR) + (WST x ST) + (WTWI x TWI) + (WSPI x SPI) + (WLULC x LULC) Eq.2

where W = weight of respective indicators determines using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP); DD = drainage
density; DR = distance to river; ST = soil texture; TWI = Topographic Wetness Index; SPI = Standard Precipitation
Index; LULC = Land Use Land Cover.

3. Drought and Flood Exposure Indices

(E1NV + E2NV)
Drought Exposure Index = Eq.3
2
(E1NV + E3NV)
Flood Exposure Index = Eq.4
2
where E1 = population density, E2 = area under rainfed agriculture, and E3 = % land under agricultural use.

4. Drought and Flood Vulnerability

(V1NV+ V2NV+V3NV+V4NV+V5NV+V6NV+V7NV+V8NV+V9NV+V10NV+V11NV)
Vulnerability Index = Eq.5
11
where V1 = multidimensional poverty index; V2 = proportion of marginal and small landholdings; V3 = yield
variability of food grains; V4 = composite MGNREGA index; V5 = female literacy rate; V6 = forest area per
hundred rural population; V7 = health infrastructure available per hundred square kilometres; V8 = livestock
to human ratio; V9 = proportion of area under crop insurance; V10 = proportion of net sown area under
horticulture; V11 = road density; NV = normalised value.
Case I: The indicator that has a + relationship with exposure/vulnerability
(Example: proportion of marginal and small landholdings)
(Actual indicator value - Min indicator value)
Normalized value = Eq.6
(Max indicator value - Min indicator value)

Case II: The indicator that has a - relationship with exposure/vulnerability

(Example: composite MGNREGA index)
(Max indicator value-Actual indicator value)
Normalized value = Eq.7
(Max indicator value-Min indicator value)

70
 About DST
The Department of Science and Technology (DST) was established in May 1971, with the objective
of promoting new areas of Science & Technology and to play the role of a nodal department for
organising, coordinating and promoting S&T activities in the country. The Department of Science
& Technology (DST) has been entrusted with the responsibility of coordinating two out of eight
national missions launched under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). These are
National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem (NMSHE) and National Mission on Strategic
Knowledge for Climate Change (NMSKCC).

About SDC
The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) has been a partner of India for more
than 60 years. Since 2011, SDC’s engagement focuses specifically on climate change and other
environmental issues. The office in India is part of SDC’s Global Programme Climate Change and
Environment (GPCCE). Other SDC Global Programmes like Food Security and Water also have ongoing
activities in India, as part of their regional/global initiatives.

Scan the QR Code to download the executive

summary and user manual of ‘District-Level Climate
Risk Assessment for India: Mapping Flood and
Drought Risks Using IPCC Framework’