Vol. 3 No. 01 (2022)
Articles

Socio–Economic Impact of Urban Flooding in one of the low-lying areas of Surat in light of e-governance and Social Engineering

PDF
  • Pankaj Gandhi,
  • Prasit Girish Agnihotri
Pankaj Gandhi
Bhagwan Mahavir University, India
Bio
Prasit Girish Agnihotri
Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of technology, India
DOI: https://doi.org/10.38094/jocef30147

Published 2022-07-10

Keywords

  • Socio economic impact,
  • E-governance,
  • Urban flood

How to Cite

[1]
P. . Gandhi and P. G. Agnihotri, “Socio–Economic Impact of Urban Flooding in one of the low-lying areas of Surat in light of e-governance and Social Engineering”, JoCEF, vol. 3, no. 01, pp. 34-50, Jul. 2022.

Copyright (c) 2022

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Flood is natural catastrophes that lead to massive damage to properties and lives. Its impact on socio-economic aspects has been highly recorded over the last two decades. Social and active learning efforts, such as flood monitoring through e-governance and Self Help Group’s (SHGs) social engineering method, effective cooperation by allowing stakeholders to talk about issues of common interest in a spirit of mutual trust and ownership, as well as breaking down information exchange obstacles. Here, we have emphasized the social impact of the low-lying area of Surat city in the context of e-governance and social engineering. In communities defined by changing climate, local economies, and demography, social and active learning through SHGs helps build an ability to manage complex socio-economic-political and environmental concerns. Using the Kadarshah Naal SHGs as a case study, we examined the SHGs framework as a catalyst for altering practices toward collaborative working and aiding the transition to more sustainable urban floods and their control. This study is collected on real-time basis data from urban flooding as a case study where the improvement in urban flood resiliency has been observed with the formation of the Kadarshah Naal SHGs. A socio-economic survey was carried out to evaluate the impact of the integration of SHGs with the urban local body (ULB) on resiliency. The study has found that the alone approach of e-governance of ULB was ineffective for faster and speedy resiliency but with the integration of SHGs, the resiliency is better. These SHGs have strengthened the peoples’ bonding and provided leverage to the ULB for handling the flood situation with disparities in viewpoints and behaviors. These SHGs have helped to reframe the tacit knowledge of handling emergency situation through social engineering approach. The Kadarshah Naal SHGs' social learning has pushed the members to move away from traditional "siloed" activities and responsibilities and provided a platform to have an integrated and inclusive approach to developing common visions and working toward urban flood resilience.

PDF

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Dhiman, R., VishnuRadhan, R., Eldho, T. I., & Inamdar, A. (2019). Flood risk and adaptation in Indian coastal cities: recent scenarios. Applied Water Science, 9(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0881-9
  2. Zhang, H., Ma, W. C., & Wang, X. R. (2008). Rapid urbanization and implications for flood risk management in hinterland of the Pearl River Delta, China: The Foshan study. Sensors, 8(4), 2223-2239.
  3. Mohan, R., & Dasgupta, S. (2004, June). Urban development in India in the twenty first century: policies for accelerating urban growth. In Fifth Annual Conference on Indian Economic Policy Reform, Stanford Centre for International Development. Retrieved from http://scid. stanford. edu/sites/default/files/publications/231wp. pdf.
  4. Ahmed, A., & Dinye, R. D. (2011). Urbanisation and the challenges of development controls in Ghana: A case study of Wa Township. Journal of sustainable development in Africa, 13(7), 210-235.
  5. Environment Agency. (2014). Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Long-Term Investment Scenarios (LTIS). www.gov.uk/environment-agency
  6. Ashley, R., Walker, L., D’Arcy, B., Wilson, S., Illman, S., Shaffer, P., ... & Chatfield, P. (2015, August). UK sustainable drainage systems: past, present and future. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering (Vol. 168, No. 3, pp. 125-130). Thomas Telford Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1680/cien.15.00011
  7. Committee on Climate Change. (2012). Climate change–is the UK preparing for flooding and water scarcity?
  8. Nukala, R. B., & Mutz, D. (2015). Strategic Approach for Sustainable Land Use in an Emerging Country – Case of India Raghu Babu Nukala , Dieter Mutz. World Bank, March.
  9. Waghwala, R. K., & Agnihotri, P. G. (2019). Flood risk assessment and resilience strategies for flood risk management: A case study of Surat City. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 40(April), 101155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101155
  10. Dewan, A. M., & Yamaguchi, Y. (2009). Land use and land cover change in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh: Using remote sensing to promote sustainable urbanization. Applied geography, 29(3), 390-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.12.005
  11. Hammond, M. J., Chen, A. S., Djordjevic, S., Butler, D., & Mark, O. (2015). Urban flood impact assessment: A state-of-the-art review. Urban Water Journal, 12(1), 14-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2013.857421
  12. Dewan, A. M., Islam, M. M., Kumamoto, T., & Nishigaki, M. (2007). Evaluating flood hazard for land-use planning in greater Dhaka of Bangladesh using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Water resources management, 21(9), 1601-1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9116-1
  13. Interim Report (2019). Social Impact Assessment Study for SURAT Metro Rail Project (Phase-I). Gujarat Metro Rail Corporation (GMRC) Limited (SPV of Government of India and Government of Gujarat). Prepared by RITES LIMITED (A Government of India Enterprise) RITES Bhawan, Plot No.1, Sector-29, Gurgaon, Pin Code : 122001(INDIA) www.rites.com
  14. Pandya, U., Patel, D. P., & Singh, S. K. (2021). A flood assessment of data scarce region using an open-source 2D hydrodynamic modeling and Google Earth Image: a case of Sabarmati flood, India. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 14(21), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517.021.08504.2
  15. Pathan, A. I., Agnihotri, P. G., Patel, D., & Prieto, C. (2021). Identifying the efficacy of tidal waves on flood assessment study—a case of coastal urban flooding. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 14(20), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517.021.08538.6.
  16. Memon, N., Patel, D. P., Bhatt, N., & Patel, S. B. (2020). Integrated framework for flood relief package (FRP) allocation in semiarid region: a case of Rel River flood, Gujarat, India. Natural Hazards, 100(1), 279-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069.019.03812.z
  17. Patel, D. P., Ramirez, J. A., Srivastava, P. K., Bray, M., & Han, D. (2017). Assessment of flood inundation mapping of Surat city by coupled 1D/2D hydrodynamic modeling: a case application of the new HEC-RAS 5. Natural Hazards, 89(1), 93–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2956-6
  18. Patel, K. A., & Bhagat, S. S. (2019). An Overview of Flood Resilience: A case of Surat City Page No. : 3043. International Journal of Management, Technology And Engineering, IX(I), 3043-3049.
  19. Brody, S., Blessing, R., Sebastian, A., & Bedient, P. (2014). Examining the impact of land use/land cover characteristics on flood losses. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(8), 1252-1265. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.802228
  20. Thieken, A. H., Apel, H., & Merz, B. (2015). Assessing the probability of large-scale flood loss events: a case study for the river R hine, Germany. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 8(3), 247-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12091
  21. Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global environmental change, 18(4), 598-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013
  22. Gourgoura, P., Blätgen, T., Lykou, A., Birkmann, J., & Makropoulos, C. (2015, September). Learning and Action Alliances: a tool for flood risk governance in coastal areas. The case of Rethymno, Crete. In In 14th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (CEST 2015). Rhodes, Greece (pp. 3-5).
  23. Fuchs, S., Keiler, M., & Zischg, A. (2015). A spatiotemporal multi-hazard exposure assessment based on property data. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 15(9), 2127-2142. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-2127-2015
  24. Barroca, B., Bernardara, P., Mouchel, J. M., & Hubert, G. (2006). Indicators for identification of urban flooding vulnerability. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 6(4), 553-561. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-6-553-2006
  25. Karagiorgos, K., Heiser, M., Thaler, T., Hübl, J., & Fuchs, S. (2016). Micro-sized enterprises: vulnerability to flash floods. Natural Hazards, 84(2), 1091-1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2476-9
  26. Small, C., & Nicholls, R. J. (2003). A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. Journal of Coastal Research, 19(3), 584–599.
  27. Von Glasow, R., Jickells, T. D., Baklanov, A., Carmichael, G. R., Church, T. M., Gallardo, L., Hughes, C., Kanakidou, M., Liss, P. S., Mee, L., Raine, R., Ramachandran, P., Ramesh, R., Sundseth, K., Tsunogai, U., Uematsu, M., & Zhu, T. (2013). Megacities and large urban agglomerations in the coastal zone: Interactions between atmosphere, land, and marine ecosystems. Ambio, 42(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0343-9
  28. Defra. (2005). Making space for water: taking forward a new government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. First Government response to the autumn 2004 consultation exercise.
  29. Ishiwatari, M. (2016). What are crucial issues in promoting an integrated approach for flood risk management in urban areas?. Japan Social Innovation Journal, 6(1), 15-26.
  30. O’Donnell, E. C., Lamond, J. E., & Thorne, C. R. (2017). Recognising barriers to implementation of Blue-Green Infrastructure: a Newcastle case study. Urban Water Journal, 14(9), 964-971. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2017.1279190
  31. Margerum, R. D., & Robinson, C. J. (2015). Collaborative partnerships and the challenges for sustainable water management. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12, 53-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.09.003
  32. Thorne, C. R., Lawson, E. C., Ozawa, C., Hamlin, S. L., & Smith, L. A. (2018). Overcoming uncertainty and barriers to adoption of Blue-Green Infrastructure for urban flood risk management. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11, S960-S972. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12218
  33. Benson, D., Lorenzoni, I., & Cook, H. (2016). Evaluating social learning in England flood risk management: an ‘individual-community interaction’perspective. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 326-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.013
  34. Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., & Taillieu, T. (2007). Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and society, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02037-120205
  35. Ison, R., Roling, N., & Watson, D. (2007). Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(6), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.02.008
  36. Bos, J. J., Brown, R. R., & Farrelly, M. A. (2013). A design framework for creating social learning situations. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 398-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.003
  37. Van Herk, S., Zevenbergen, C., Ashley, R., & Rijke, J. (2011). Learning and Action Alliances for the integration of flood risk management into urban planning: a new framework from empirical evidence from The Netherlands. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(5), 543-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.006
  38. Ashley, R. M., Blanskby, J., Newman, R., Gersonius, B., Poole, A., Lindley, G., ... & Nowell, R. (2012). L earning and A ction A lliances to build capacity for flood resilience. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 5(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01108.x
  39. Newman, R., Ashley, R., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., & Cashman, A. (2011, March). Managing water as a socio-technical system: the shift from ‘experts’ to ‘alliances’. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability (Vol. 164, No. 1, pp. 95-102). Thomas Telford Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.1000032
  40. Ishiwatari, M. (2019). Flood risk governance: Establishing collaborative mechanism for integrated approach. Progress in Disaster Science, 2, 100014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2019.100014
  41. Thieken, A. H., Kienzler, S., Kreibich, H., Kuhlicke, C., Kunz, M., Mühr, B., ... & Schröter, K. (2016). Review of the flood risk management system in Germany after the major flood in 2013. Ecology and Society, 21(2).
  42. Samuels, P., Morris, M., Sayers, P., Creutin, J. D., Kortenhaus, A., Klijn, F., Mosselman, E., & Schanze, J. (2010, May). A framework for integrated flood risk management. In 1st IAHR European Division Congress.
  43. Slavikova, L. (2018). Effects of government flood expenditures: The problem of crowding-out. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11(1), 95-104.
  44. Ward, P. J., Pauw, W. P., Van Buuren, M. W., & Marfai, M. A. (2013). Governance of flood risk management in a time of climate change: the cases of Jakarta and Rotterdam. Environmental Politics, 22(3), 518-536.
  45. Hooper B. (2017). Integrated river basin governance: Learning from international experience. London: IWA Publishing.
  46. European Community (2007). Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. Off J Eur Communities 2007; L228 : 27–34.
  47. Corfee-Morlot J, Kamal-Chaoui L, Donovan MG, Cochran I, Robert A, Teasdale PJ. (2009). Cities, climate change and multilevel governance. OECD environmental working papers 14. OECD Publishing.
  48. Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 341-363.
  49. Tullos, D. (2018). How to achieve better flood-risk governance in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(15), 3731-3734.
  50. Evans, E.P., Ashley, R.M., Hall, J., Penning-Rowsell, E., Sayers, P. & Thorne, C. (2004). Foresight. Future Flooding. Managing future risks., vol. IILondon: UK Office of Science and Technology.
  51. Fleischhauer, M., Greiving, S., Flex, F., Scheibel, M., Stickler, T., Sereinig, N., ... & Firus, K.
  52. (2012). Improving the active involvement of stakeholders and the public in flood risk management–tools of an involvement strategy and case study results from Austria, Germany and Italy. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12(9), 2785-2798.
  53. Francesch-Huidobro, M. (2015). Collaborative governance and environmental authority for adaptive flood risk: Recreating sustainable coastal cities: Theme 3: Pathways towards urban modes that support regenerative sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 568-580.
  54. Nabavi, R. T. (2012). Bandura’s social learning theory & social cognitive learning theory. Theory of Developmental Psychology, 1, 24.
  55. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global environmental change, 19(3), 354-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
  56. Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2011). Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 619-644. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq089
  57. Hurlbert, M., & Gupta, J. (2017). The adaptive capacity of institutions in Canada, Argentina, and Chile to droughts and floods. Regional environmental change, 17(3), 865-877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1078-0
  58. Medema, W., Wals, A., & Adamowski, J. (2014). Multi-loop social learning for sustainable land and water governance: Towards a research agenda on the potential of virtual learning platforms. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 69, 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2014.03.003
  59. Ison, R., Blackmore, C., & Iaquinto, B. L. (2013). Towards systemic and adaptive governance: Exploring the revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary social-learning metaphors. Ecological Economics, 87, 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.016
  60. Butterworth, J. A., Batchelor, C., Moriarty, P., Schouten, T., Da Silva, C., Verhagen, J., ... & Eckart, J. (2008). Building more effective partnerships for innovation in urban water management. Water and urban development paradigms, 575-584.
  61. Ishiwatari, M., Yamada, T., & Komori, D. (2018). Integrated approach of flood risk management in urban area: How can organizations concerned collaborate. In IWA World Water Congres & Exhibition.
  62. Verhagen, J., Butterworth, J., & Morris, M. (2008). Learning alliances for integrated and sustainable innovations in urban water management. Waterlines, 116-124. https://doi.org/10.3362/1756-3488.2008.014
  63. Driessen, P. P., Hegger, D. L., Bakker, M. H., van Rijswick, H. F., & Kundzewicz, Z. W. (2016). Toward more resilient flood risk governance. Ecology and Society, 21(4).
  64. Plummer, R., Baird, J., Bullock, R., Dzyundzyak, A., Dupont, D., Gerger Swartling, Å., ... & Thomsen, D. (2018). Flood Governance: A multiple country comparison of stakeholder perceptions and aspirations. Environmental Policy and Governance, 28(2), 67-81.
  65. Rouillard, J. J., & Spray, C. J. (2017). Working across scales in integrated catchment management: lessons learned for adaptive water governance from regional experiences. Regional Environmental Change, 17(7), 1869-1880.
  66. Alexander, M., Priest, S. J., Micou, P., Tapsell, S. M., Green, C. H., Parker, D. J., & Homewood, S. (2016). Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in England–enhancing societal resilience through comprehensive and aligned flood risk governance arrangements.
  67. Sutherland, A., da Silva Wells, C., Darteh, B., & Butterworth, J. (2012). Researchers as actors in urban water governance? Perspectives on learning alliances as an innovative mechanism for change. International Journal of Water, 6(3-4), 311-329. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijw.2012.049502
  68. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
  69. Koontz, T. M. (2014). Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(10), 1572-1593. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.820658
  70. Elaji, A., & Ji, W. (2020). Urban runoff simulation: how do land use/cover change patterning and geospatial data quality impact model outcome?. Water, 12(10), 2715. doi:10.3390/w12102715.
  71. Ghaffari, G. (2011). The impact of DEM resolution on runoff and sediment modelling results. Research Journal of Environmental Sciences, 5(8), 691.
  72. Gandhi, P. J., Murthy, Z. V. P., & Pati, R. K. (2012). Optimization of process parameters by Taguchi robust design method for the development of nano-crystals of sirolimus using sonication based crystallization. Crystal Research and Technology, 47(1), 53-72.
  73. See, L. (2019). A review of citizen science and crowdsourcing in applications of pluvial flooding. Frontiers in Earth Science, 7, 44. doi: 10.3389/feart.2019.00044
  74. Njue, N., Kroese, J. S., Gräf, J., Jacobs, S. R., Weeser, B., Breuer, L., & Rufino, M. C. (2019). Citizen science in hydrological monitoring and ecosystem services management: State of the art and future prospects. Science of the Total Environment, 693, 133531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.337
  75. Van Herk, S, Zevenbergen, C., Rijke, J., & Ashley, R. (2011). Collaborative research to support transition towards integrating flood risk management in urban development. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 4(4), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01113.x
  76. Pahl-Wostl, C., Mostert, E., & Tàbara, D. (2008). The growing importance of social learning in water resources management and sustainability science. Ecology and society, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02352-130124
  77. Carr, G., Blöschl, G., & Loucks, D. P. (2012). Evaluating participation in water resource management: A review. Water Resources Research, 48(11). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011662
  78. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. In SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315669366-1
  79. Nakao, T., & Tanimoto, K. (1997). Comprehensive flood control measures in the Tsurumi River Basin in Japan. Water international, 22(4), 252-258.
  80. Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
  81. Thaler, T., & Priest, S. (2014). Partnership funding in flood risk management: New localism debate and policy in England. Area, 46(4), 418–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12135
  82. Dudley, E., Ashley, R., Manojlovic, N., Van Herk, S., & Blanksby, J. (2013). Learning and Action Alliances for innovation and active learning in a European context. In International conference on Flood Resilience (ICFR): Experiences in Asia and Europe, Exeter (United Kingdom) 5-7 Sept., 2013. Centre of Water Systems.