A framework to assess urban water resilience in developing countries like India: Looking beyond water utilities and networked cities

The world population by 2050 will be 9.8 billion as against 6.1 billion in 2001, with the bulk of this increase taking place in India, China, and Nigeria, where India is expected to add 416 million people to its urban population (as against 2.5 billion globally) (United Nations 2017). Parallel to this, the world is getting more urbanized with each passing day, riding on the wave of economic and technological developments and the desire for a better living. As a consequence, the global water demand has seen an escalation of approximately 1% annually since the last decade, owing to incessantly increasing economic development, a spurt in population across the globe, and altering consumption patterns and lifestyles of people, among some additional factors, and this is expected to grow significantly over the conceivable future (UNESCO 2018), pressing upon the ardent need to manage existing water resources.

The modern ideal of a networked city, with centralized systems and a network of pipes running across a city, presupposes a socially equivalent and spatially uniform top-to-bottom urban infrastructure system providing uniform and homogenous utility service over the urban area (Coutard & Rutherford 2015). The report by UN-Habitat (2016) identifies the errant population growth and the poor financial condition of the developing economies due to their limited urban service delivery infrastructure. The present-day dynamics, holding the fragile urban environment of the cities in the developing world, prove a serious challenge for the accomplishment of a central infrastructure network city, especially in fast-transforming cities of developing countries (Wamuchiru 2017) due to the exclusionary mechanisms entrenched in the network expansions, excluding some portions of urbanized areas unconnected to the essential urban services, either due to political will, economic and financial issue class and status, or just due to absolute neglect, and hence relying on decentralized and localized water sources like wells and private water tankers. The urban poor remain the main affected, in the absence of proper living conditions and economic stability. Also, they can be visualized as having the potential to increase the efficiency of water use, since to meet the water requirements, most households resort to unregulated water withdrawal, sometimes legally and sometimes illegally. They constitute about one-fourth of the city's population in India, with some cities like Mumbai constituting roughly half the city population (UNDP 2009); hence enhancing their water urban resilience would cause double the benefits of reducing the burden of illegal water withdrawal and will help to reduce overall water vulnerability. Hence, a study in this regard of universal water resource provisioning and eradicating socio-spatial inequalities is essential.

Furthermore, cities are becoming more vulnerable to water issues due to the deterioration of urban water infrastructure, water pollution, flood events, increasing sanitation and water demand due to rising population, and ineffective decision-making, threatening the local population's safety and well-being (Jalilov et al. 2017). Every one of the listed threats (with intensified effects, as multiple threats may get intertwined) is expected to have a substantial implication for urban water security. Moreover, the interdependence in the urban system by the water–energy–food–health nexus can cause serious issues in its functionality. Consequently, water resilience for urban areas deserves additional exploration.

In the context of Indian cities, as stated by Reddy (2010), the water sector already accounts for a substantial share of many states' budgets, and there is limited scope for the expansion of water supplies within and beyond city limits. The average per capita water consumption in domestic households for seven major Indian cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Kanpur, and Madurai is about 92 liters per capita per day (lpcd), much below the national standard of 135 lpcd (Shaban & Sattar 2011). For the state of Rajasthan, which is geographically arid and climatically a region with hot and dry weather, about 20% of the population is devoid of tap water connections (Reddy 2010) while the demand and supply gap in the state is 57% when World Health Organization (WHO) norms are used for estimating the demand (Reddy 1996), highlighting the status of water poverty. Only 14% of the towns in the state are fully covered, while 51% of the towns require an extension of the network as well as supply augmentation (Reddy 2010). With water losses running in the ranges of 40–50% in many Indian cities, the actual per capita water supplies are substantially below par with the urban standards of drinking water supply. With limited infrastructure reach and poor per capita water supplies, many Indian cities struggle to provide virtuous urban living. Hence, while exploring the concept of urban resilience as a tool for better and safer urban living, especially in developing countries like India, studies must focus on water systems beyond the water utilities owing to their limited existence and reach.

India is witnessing a spurt in urban population numbers and henceforth a growing number of cities and urban centers. With the growing population and urban centers, the urban water need is also increasing. Moreover, the discord in the growth of population and the spatial spread is also alarming, which as per past studies is roughly two to three times in certain cities. Hence, to accommodate more people, our cities are expanding, seldom with a similar density and mostly with a reduced density, and in turn straining the financial resources, as with expanding cities, infrastructure costs rise. The water utilities in India are already stressed financially and find it difficult to keep the pace of infrastructure expansion with urban spatial growth. The expansion of cities without adequate water supply infrastructure may make them dependent on unsustainable groundwater extraction or face frequent water shortages, reducing future growth.

The report by Niti (2018) warns that India is facing its ‘worst’ water crisis in history, with demand for potable water expected to outstrip supply by 2030. The report adds that nearly 600 million Indians face high to extreme water stress (Niti 2018) and about 200,000 people die every year due to inadequate access to safe water (World Health Organization 2018), indicating a high level of inherent water poverty prevailing in the country. The report also ascertains that 40% of the water supplies in the country, both illegal and provisioned, which is growing due to water demand owing to population growth and intense urbanization, are met by groundwater sources, which points to the limited reach and service performance of water utilities in the country through network supply. While 88% of the households have a clean water source close to the household (HH), 75% do not have a drinking water source on the premises (Niti 2018). This highlights the plight of developing and underdeveloped nations where urban water utilities have a very limited reach. Moreover, within their serviced areas, the utilities might be efficient, which, however, is in stark contrast to the state of the unserved/underserved areas. Urban water resilience, hence, when measured from the utility side, might represent a false image, especially in the case of developing and underdeveloped countries.

India is vulnerable, not only due to its physical water stress but also due to poor water management, water pollution, and its expanding urban areas. Though network infrastructure might be the universally accepted norm, in developing country contexts, like India, it is imperative to work on alternate strategies with a focus on socio-economic scarcity (means there is water present, but it is not available to all because of lack of investment and political will) (UN Water 2017) and relate it with spatial development for better urban planning, including water management with sustainable resource provisioning. This emphasizes the need to study water service provision; its distribution amongst the socio-economic fabric of residents is essential in the Indian context since the generalization of urban water policies might not be ideal for all. This forms the objective of the proposed framework.

This is a mixed-method research study that involved content analysis of literature related to urban resilience in general, urban water resilience specifically, and a Delphi-based study (discussed in Section 5) to relate the HH water provisions and usage habits in developing countries with the resilience characteristics. The specific review questions to be addressed were: What is the definition of urban water resilience? ‘how urban water resilience translates to cities of developing countries with heterogeneous water infrastructure provisions? and ‘how are the principles and criteria for assessment of urban resilience embedded in urban water systems?’.

Analysis of the literature was conducted in two steps. The first step was focused on conceptualizing urban resilience in general and urban water resilience specifically. This is discussed in Section 3. The second step establishes the approach to the framework, where the need to assess urban water resilience under heterogeneous conditions of urban water systems is studied. Consequently, the Delphi technique was used to extract a list of water resilience criteria/parameters, taking structural clues from a similar study done for urban energy resilience by Sharifi & Yamagata (2016) and relating them to the components of the water resilience framework to explore possible associations between the components of the water resilience framework. Extracted criteria/parameters had been categorized into five themes by Sharifi & Yamagata (2016) and have been retained for this study too, but the rationale of individual indicators is discussed in Section 5 for each theme.

A diverse panel constituting 20 national and international experts, possessing in-depth knowledge in the urban water resilience field, was consulted (international and local experts, including officials, practitioners, non-government organisation (NGO) field experts, academicians, and local officials from water resource departments and the water utility company). The indicators' consensus is based on the expert group, along with the rationale of the assessment of the indicators. The framework was conceptualized after the Delphi expert survey consultation. A study bundle including a briefing note elucidating the intention of this research exercise, assuring the obscurity and discretion of experts involved, the subject description of urban water resilience at the HH level, along with the tables (answer columns were left blank) was shared with the expert group. There was considerable consistency that was found in assessing these forms against the form compiled by the authors, while some variations existed amongst national and international experts, which were mainly associated with the assessing rationale of the indicators due to the difference in Indian and international contexts. Furthermore, the subjectivity of some proportions will inevitably be intrinsic to the resilience judgments owing to their normative nature. The final list of indicators and assessment criteria comprised only those that were agreed upon by at least five experts, a step chosen to lower the integral bias in the opinions.

With the term ‘resilience’ gaining popularity among governments, organizations, and in the research world, and the multi-faceted functional ambit, the desire to operationalize the concept of resilience is increasing. This desire has led to a variety of hurdles to overcome, one amongst which is developing frameworks to measure the resilience of various systems to a diversified set of shocks and stresses, due to multiple interaction scales, and complex assumptions defining systems thinking (Bahadur et al. 2013).

Frameworks have been referred to as tools to systemize resilience concepts and guide efforts to measure, evaluate, test, and analyze the results of processes to build resilience (Bahadur et al. 2015). Resilience assessment frameworks have been developed in various contexts, amongst which disaster risk resilience and climate change adaptation have been the most popular ones. Only a few of the frameworks support empirically the construction and validation of the approach taken, and some employ case studies while others use community knowledge garnered through participatory techniques (Bahadur et al. 2015). Also, most frameworks focus on five (derived from the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework) or six capital sets like human, social, natural, physical, and financial, with institutional capital a part of the few (Cutter et al. 2008).

Several studies indicated the fact that spatial planning can play an important role in promoting resilience in the face of climate change. Planning can integrate different concepts sequentially and implement these ideas into local practices by organizing land-use change or by requiring certain forms of urban development. The framework for resilient cities, from a planner's perspective, by building on the existing resilient city concepts, has been researched recently. The development of an assessment framework for evaluating the extent of the resiliency of urban areas can be an effective way of incorporating resiliency-related issues into the urban planning process (Sharifi & Yamagata 2014). Lu (2014) mentions that ‘the concept of resilience is widely used, but its promotion through spatial planning is still questionable’ while urban planning, in itself, is a complex subject laced with multi-faceted interactions, linkages, and interconnections. Since urban resilience and urban planning require multi-disciplinary approaches and integration of knowledge addressing environmental, social, cultural, ecological, and urban aspects, the notion of resilience embedded in planning becomes a more complex process. Of the reviewed frameworks, most of the researchers have drawn the theoretical basis through qualitative analysis like Jabareen (2013), Lu (2014), and Sharifi & Yamagata (2014).

Most of the authors have responded to the basic questioning of ‘Resilience against What?’ through the identification of vulnerability (Jabareen 2013). Due to scale tensions, the resilience of ‘WHOM’, which seeks the identification of the vulnerable, and the scale of application in terms of local/community, city, national are not standardized (Bahadur et al. 2015). The operationalization or the implementation part of answering the resilience question of ‘HOW’ is what the frameworks seek to answer in a structured way. However, it is also deduced that the different frameworks work on different approaches and conceptualizations, and only partially capture the overall domain of urban resilience, for which they need to be comprehensive (Jabareen 2013; Carter et al. 2015).

Urban landscapes are often subjected to chronic disturbances, complex interactions between processes, and rapid rates of change amongst their constituent elements. This upsets the urban ecosystem's capacity to maintain and exercise its ecosystem services sustaining the quality of urban life (Bolund & Hunhammar 1999; Elmqvist et al. 2004). The inability to cope with the fast pace of transformation has brought the urban centers at risk, as Bosher (2008) highlights, the increasing number of threats being faced by the built environment that have escalated in the past few years owing to various economic, socio-political, and demographic phenomena, including the rising population of the world alongside urbanization and climate change (Bosher 2008). This synchronization gap affects the urban environment through the limitation in the provision of infrastructure, services. Also, as Puente (1999) argues, the increasing contribution of cities to the gross domestic product (GDP) of regions, states, and countries, alongside the extraordinary concentration of developments in a few large megapoleis, has challenged the capacity of the state to respond to demands for urban services, which are critical to the functioning of a city (Puente 1999).

Urban resilience refers to the ability of an urban system and all its constituent socio-ecological and socio-technical networks across temporal and spatial scales to maintain or rapidly return to desired functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt, to change, and to transform systems that limit current or future adaptive capacity quickly (Meerow et al. 2016b), or as Brooks et al. (2005) define, ‘the capacity of linked social-ecological systems to absorb recurrent disturbances to retain essential structures, processes and feedbacks and the degree to which the system can build capacity for learning and adaptation’. The latter also refers more explicitly to a multi-scalar system with the potential for learning and adaptation/transformation when ecological, political, social, or economic conditions make the existing system in question untenable (Johannessen & Wamsler 2017). The applicability of the term ‘resilience’ in the urban water sector can be coined as urban water resilience, which refers to the capacity of the urban water system to cope in the short term to adapt and bounce back in the long term against the unpredicted variations like acute water infrastructure degradation or major system failures or inadequate drinking water and/or wastewater infrastructure, or occurrence of calamities or long-term stresses induced by climate change. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals through its goal six (clean water and sanitation) have put water at the center stage of the globe, where practitioners, policymakers, and researchers are being encouraged to find solutions to the challenges put forth under the achievement of such goals. Hence an opportunity to enable resilience and sustainability principles in urban water has come to the fore. There is an eminent need to take immediate steps, especially in developing countries like India, to enhance the readiness to confront the existing and also emergent challenges, protecting the masses from hydrological calamities, as many of the Indian cities are grappling with issues of water shortages, urban flooding, and poor water quality.

The poor state of the urban water service delivery mechanism and the partially developed ‘networks’ for the urban water infrastructure render the masses vulnerable. Under the pretext of covering many through urban water supply provisions, still, there are many, especially the urban poor and the informal settlement inhabitants who are left out. Moreover, under the water stress conditions, in which the city's water supply is constrained, the majority of the urban population becomes vulnerable, dependent on the single source of the ‘networked’ supply by the public utilities. Hence, a more diverse and heterogeneous configuration of urban water supply can reduce the dependance on the structured water supply monolith and, under more diverse options of water provisions, be more resilient.

The definition for urban water resilience, stated at the beginning of this section, describes resilience for whom (water infrastructure) and resilience to what (infrastructure degradations, failures, inadequacy of provisioning, calamities, or stresses) (Cutter 2016). This definition is modified for its application in a more holistic way to capture the nuances put forth by the appraisal of the network city concept for this study, which attempts to capture the urban water resilience, amid the existence of centralized networks, private vendors, illegal water extractions, and borewells. Hence, the scale for the application of the concept is taken to be households, based on the users (and not in respect of ‘institutions’). This study hence proposes a new definition based on the applicability and assessment (to be read as ‘urban water resilience for households’) ‘the capacity of urban households to cope and absorb in the short-term (here time is related to the frequency of intermittent supplies), to adapt and improve in the long-term and transform in the longer term to withstand against the unpredicted variations like water supply failure (any source), or inadequate water availability for the household, or sudden occurrence of calamities or long-term stresses which might be induced by climate change affecting the water availability at the household level’. This definition captures and accepts the existence of different modalities in water supply services and keeps intact the very fundamentals of resilience theory and definitions. Furthermore, to synthesize the concept of an urban water system for the study, the inherent characteristics and abilities are discussed.

Step I: Urban water resilience indicators

Step II: Indicators aligning with the resilience characteristics/principles

Step III: Expert selection and modification

Step IV: Data availability and relevance

In step I, from the literature review, indicators were extracted that the past studies had used for assessing urban water sector resilience. As mentioned earlier, most of the studies have used the water sector resilience assessments on water utilities. These indicators were spread across themes and analyzed various resilience abilities, such as an assessment of buffer capacity, to serve the population under water-stressful conditions of drought, which analyzed the adaptive capacity of the utilities, and an assessment of resources needed to maintain the infrastructure, which contributed to the coping abilities for a resilient urban water system. Like this, in total, 36 indicators were selected with experts' help, which was found with the rationale that they could be amended and transformed as per the relevance of the household scale. For example, the earlier stated indicators were retained with a similar rationale and transformed to ‘buffer capacities in the form of HH level storage capacities’ and the ‘resources needed to maintain the private water service infrastructure like supply pipes, water tanks, etc.’, thereby keeping the intent, to quantify the urban water resilience at the HH level, the same. A similar approach was undertaken, with the intent to identify the relevant indicators for water resilience assessment at the HH level and to transform the utility-level indicators to make them meaningful at the HH level.

In step II, the general indicators being used for the assessment of urban resilience were analyzed. Since most of the studies indicate that the characteristics used for assessment of urban resilience are not exclusive and could be regarded as general principles that any resilient system should possess, the resilience characteristics used in various studies were assessed, which were in general specific to areas, such as water, energy, and planning. These general principles were then compiled, and the identified indicators from step I were categorized and aligned with the resilience characteristics. In total, 15 resilience characteristics were identified. However, it is to be noted that these resilient characteristics often overlap and are not mutually exclusive.

In step III, the synthesized set of indicators was reviewed by experts for relevance to the current research and to check if some indicators could be combined and/or modified. Also, indicators aligned with the general resilience characteristics from resilience assessment studies (other than water) were collected. These resilience assessment studies scrutinized for resilience indicators relevant to current research and added 18 indicators to the list, with inherent resilience characteristics. For example, Sharifi & Yamagata (2015) in their study to assess energy resilience, had 196 indicators, some of which were specific to the energy sector, some were general, and some were to be assessed at a city scale, while some could be modified to be relevant at the HH scale.

The indicators in steps II and III were finalized using the Delphi technique (Alshehri et al. 2014), which has been discussed in Section 2

In step IV, finally, the indicator set was assessed for ease of data collection through primary and secondary sources and availability of data. This step yielded the final list of 32 indicators, which were taken up for the study. These final indicators were then divided into four broad themes, as put up by a similar study done by Sharifi & Yamagata (2015) for urban energy resilience, namely:

• Urban Infrastructure and Land Use

• Resources

• Governance

• Social

It must be noted again that some criteria can be classified into more than one theme. These themes are discussed in the following with their set of indicators.

The 9 + 2 criteria listed under this theme are related to sub-themes, namely, supply and distribution; backup and storage; additional structures meant for water services; and innovative technology. The land-use criteria relate to the unit and its resident density. The coded urban infrastructure and land-use indicators are mentioned in Table 1. The maximum and minimum values possible for each indicator are mentioned in the columns maximum possible value achievable under this indicator (Ma) and minimum possible value achievable under this indicator (Mi). The maximum possible score under Urban Infra and Land Use is 33, while the minimum is 3.

There are a total of seven criteria under resources that are related to judicious consumption of resources, enhancing self-sufficiency, and minimizing generation-related impacts on water. The coded resource indicators are mentioned in Table 2. The maximum and minimum values possible for each indicator are mentioned in the columns Ma and Mi. The maximum possible score under the resources theme is 17, while the minimum is 2.

This theme consists of five criteria. In addition to technological and design qualifications, water-resilient systems should also feature powerful institutional mechanisms. Among other things, urban governance plays the essential role of coordinating the activities of various components of the system; monitoring conditions and performance achievement; developing pricing strategies; enforcing regulatory actions and policies; and developing planning strategies for knowledge transfer, community outreach, and open and broad-based stakeholder participation. The coded governance indicators are mentioned in Table 3. The maximum and minimum values possible for each indicator are mentioned in the columns Ma and Mi. The maximum possible score under the Governance theme is 7, while the minimum is 0.

It is the theme with seven criteria on socio-demographic aspects and human behavior. It is related to, namely, demographics, representation, and behavioral aspects like social cohesion. The coded social indicators are mentioned in Table 4. The maximum and minimum values possible for each indicator are mentioned in the columns Ma and Mi. The maximum possible score under the social theme is 23, while the minimum is 1.

Furthermore, analysis of individual themes reveals that both areas have scored poorly in the governance theme, with both scoring less than 40% of the maximum possible score (area 1 approximately 39% and area 2 approximately 6%). This highlights the poor status of governance and poor penetration of its associated measures like the rating and certification of water-saving fixtures, presence of welfare associations. While area 1 scores approximately 69% in the resources theme (because of the better socio-economic profile of the residents, enabling them to have access to better fixtures, bigger investments in buffer storage, and awareness owing to better education), area 2 scores approximately 56%. Area 1 scores about 56% in urban infrastructure and land use theme and social theme, while area 2 scores approximately 45 and 34%, respectively. Area 1 scores average despite having better urban water infrastructure than area 2, since it lacks in areas such as regular maintenance and infrastructure to segregate used water, while area 2 further scores less than area 1 due to the poor reach of urban water infrastructure. Under the social theme, area 1 scores well for showing a willingness to invest in water-saving technologies and water poverty in comparison to area 2.

Table 5 presents the average indicator scores, for micro-analysis, achieved by the study areas under the four themes. This table reveals the competencies in which a particular study area is strong and the competencies in which a particular study area has performed poorly and has the potential for improvement. For example, area 1 has scored well for water infrastructure-related indicators like diversification of water supply, regular maintenance, and distribution network (since this area is well serviced by an urban water supply network by the local municipal body), while it has scored poorly in indicators such as rainwater harvesting and water conservation measures. Hence, despite affordability and better education, most households are not investing in measures such as rainwater harvesting. Both areas performed poorly across almost all the indicators in the governance theme, except for the smart metering provisioning, where area 1 scored well.

In the context of the profound impetus being emphasized on water and its availability for all in recent years, and especially in the ever-expanding cities in developing countries context, the research findings from this study are an important breakthrough in highlighting the possibility of strengthening the urban water resilience at a HH level by implementing basic interventions at plot and community level which is over and above the contributions from the water utilities to enhance the urban water resilience of the city residents.

The research interlinks the key resilient characteristics to the spatial and physical parameters, thereby identifying the key potential spheres to be strengthened. However, the study also underpins the anomaly in the equitable and affordable water distribution across various socio-spatial segments, thereby enabling customized solutions rather than advocating ‘one size fits all’ or uniform policy development and implementation for improved urban living. The research establishes an integrated framework to formulate and evolve a matrix to assess urban water resilience, especially beneficial for developing countries with cities having a heterogeneous mix of water supply provisions, which need to be evaluated not only at the centralized network but also to capture the nuances prevailing at the end-user level, which are not a part of the central supply network, and which the newly advocated methodology can resolve. Moreover, an index based on the criteria discussed in the study can be evolved, in congruence with a spatial database, which can also help to create water supply and management plans for critical times and can be used to create a database of local area-wise forms of water storage capacities, which can also prove handy in case of fire in the vicinity area, which is shown via a case study. The case study reveals that urban water resilience is much more than just a provision of a robust urban water infrastructure. It has other dimensions too, which can render an area or region more resilient or vulnerable. Even an area with a good urban water infrastructure can be less resilient owing to limited penetration of measures like rainwater harvesting and segregation of used water via two-pipe and three-pipe systems. On the other hand, measures like the establishment of community welfare organizations for common water storage infrastructure, community tap provisions can make a limited water infrastructure area more resilient with minimal economic expenditure.

As established from the study, the urban water resilience assessment approach and scale in a developing country context should not be limited to centralized water-based utilities but rather involve scope to capture a heterogeneous mix of prevailing urban water systems. This methodology can also be used for other areas/other cities that are having multiple decentralized and non-structured water supply provisions for managing the disruptions in water supply for a shorter period. Hence, this study can act as a base for developing short-term and long-term water management plans/HH water policies topped up by the findings from water consumption pattern studies, and by regularly updating the database information at the HH level, new innovative solutions for future water problems can be proposed.

The study has further scope to include other building typologies in water resilience studies, including commercial, industrial, and institutional. Each of these different typologies would demand a reassessment of the resilience criteria and associated indicators and hence a newly evolved framework. In a geographic information system (GIS)-based study, overlapping the resilience attributes over the spatial coordinates of different areas may help to identify the critical shortcomings and the associated measures that can be taken to enhance resilient capacities. This will also include a continuous up-gradation and evolution of the criteria suggested in the current study to make the framework more meaningful in another context, as well as capture finer tones of urban water resilience parameters. The development of an online tool drawing content from the database of urban utilities, private vendors, and end-users themselves can assist big time in enhancing and protecting the quality of life in the respective cities/states or regions for water resources provisions, which further can be used by policymakers to take informed decisions.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.