Why Cities Fail During Extreme Climate Events

Context

1. Recent devastating floods in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines have exposed a major weakness in how countries judge the “modernity” and “liveability” of cities.
2. Urban liveability rankings often celebrate metros like Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, but these metrics fail to measure a city’s real ability to protect people during cyclones, cloudbursts and landslides.

What liveability indices currently measure?

1. UN-Habitat City Prosperity Index measures: Productivity, Quality of life, Infrastructure, Equity, Environmental sustainability and Urban governance.
2. Global Liveability Index Checks: Stability, Healthcare, Education, Infrastructure and Culture & environment.
3. City Resilience Index Assesses: Health & well-being, Economy & society, Infrastructure and Leadership & strategy.

Problem: These indices do not assess whether a city can withstand 21st-century extreme weather, despite climate risks rising every year.

Why do recent Asian floods expose weaknesses in these rankings?

1. Major events
   1. Sri Lanka: Cyclone Ditwah → floods & landslides; 400+ deaths
   2. Indonesia: Cyclonic storms → villages destroyed
   3. Thailand: South Thailand & Hat Yai received “heaviest rainfall in centuries”; floods metres deep
   4. Philippines: Typhoon Kalmaegi → massive flooding in Cebu & Visayas
2. Secondary cities absorb the worst impacts
   1. Cities like Hat Yai, Cebu, and small towns around Colombo suffer the most—but they are not covered in major indices. Thus, high-risk urban areas are invisible in global assessments.

Core shortcomings of liveability indices

1. Grey infrastructure built for older climate patterns
   1. Many cities used:
      1. Drains designed for weaker rainfall
      2. Slope settlements without stability assessment

• Outdated stormwater systems

1. They collapse under:
   1. 300+ mm rain in a day
   2. Rapid landslides

• Two-day entrapments due to poor evacuation

Yet, indices reward cities simply for having infrastructure, not for its climate adequacy.

2. Indices ignore micro-level vulnerabilities
   1. Indices fail to differentiate:
      1. A brick house on stable land
         vs
      2. A brick house cut into a dangerous hillside

Both count as “durable housing” even though only one is safe.

3. Indices distort investment priorities
   1. Cities with good scores attract more investment—even if:
      1. Their drainage is weak
      2. Their slopes are unstable

• Their growth increases exposure to floods

1. Governments then prioritise:
   1. Airports
   2. Metro lines

• Riverfront beautification

…but ignore:

1. Desilting canals
2. Maintaining culverts
3. Enforcing zoning laws
4. Relocating residents from dangerous areas

These neglected tasks are essential for climate resilience.

4. Indices widen socio-economic inequality
   1. City-wide averages hide vulnerabilities:
      1. Wealthy people recover faster (insurance, mobility, stronger housing)
      2. Poor peri-urban settlers face the first and worst impacts
   2. Thus, liveability rankings:
      1. Reward high-value coastal/hill development
      2. Ignore risk transfer to low-income communities
   3. Global aid often bypasses the most vulnerable cities
      1. International climate finance requires:
         1. Technical reports
         2. Data

• Planning documents

1. Only large metros can produce
   1. Smaller, high-risk towns → receive little adaptation funding, even though they face greater climate danger.

Key implications for India

1. Indian metros differ significantly in disaster resilience (e.g., Mumbai vs Chennai vs Delhi).
2. Rankings hide vulnerabilities in fast-growing peri-urban belts.
3. Urban planning must shift from “liveability” to “climate survivability.”
4. Infrastructure must be designed for future climate extremes, not past averages.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

Urban liveability must be redefined for the climate era.
 A “modern” city is not one with metro lines and glossy waterfronts—but one where a 300 mm cloudburst does not collapse infrastructure or kill people.
 Without measuring climate resilience, global rankings mislead policymakers and deepen inequalities.
 Cities must shift from a model of growth-led modernity to a model of climate-safe development.