Water Resilience in the Indian Context: Definitions, Policies, Approaches and Gaps

India is among the world's most vulnerable regions to climatic changes. Because of its unique topography and microclimates, it is susceptible to a wide range of water-related threats. The recurrent drought to heavy rain and flooding has left the country reckoning the cost of climatic changes in terms of lives lost and destroyed livelihoods [4, 5]. Researchers are working on solutions to fulfil the growing demand for water while addressing climate change. The issues faced by the research area are complicated and critical: Growing population and climate change are imposing further stress on the country's water supply; further, sea levels rise and their resources to support floods. Rising water demand is increasing groundwater depletion. Since 1970s, flooding and water contamination have been a prime focus in developed countries [6]. Cities that rely solely on water imports from neighbouring areas are similarly impacted by transmission and distribution losses. The vulnerable coastal areas, river flood plains and delta regions are prone to frequent floods and areas away from the coast. The areas near the foothills are also prone to flood due to the intense rainfall or melting of snow. During periods of scanty rainfall, the state struggles to deal with the prevailing seawater. During arid conditions, the problems worsen. Climate change-induced sea-level rise is more likely to fracture the existing coastal/river defences. Meanwhile, saline water intrusion runs the risk of making groundwater supplies unusable.

2.1 'Resilience' definitions

Diverse disciplines cite resilience to explain the reaction and retaliation of a system to a certain kind of disruptions. As the cities are complex and multi-dimensional, elucidating resilience in an urban context encompasses perceptions from various distinct disciplines. In ecology, Holling's notion of "resilience" was used to describe a system's ability to accept a disturbance, reorganize and combat the changes while still maintaining the needed function, structure, and identity [7]. In management, Scholars use resilience to retaliate from the shock, which is a distinct part of the supply networks and return to the existing business. Economists employ resilience as the capability of an institution to respond and reclaim from financial loss. Psychologists also use resilience to elucidate individuals' potential to endure significant stress and continue performing effectively. Engineers and scientists researching materials use resilience to measure bouncing back ability after a tension, which is the material's innate quality. Thus, there is a need to integrate the ideas from varied disciplines using the term resilience.

Pickett examined the city's resilience definition, comparing its variations on equilibrium and non-equilibrium perspectives of resilience. He also attempted to combine the equilibrium and non-equilibrium aspects of resilience where the resilient cities are planned considering hazards based on past experiences and the system's ability to adjust and adapt [8].

Perrings propagated the economic attribute to resilience. He studied the withstanding ability of a system, efficient resource allocation aftermarket stress, causing minimum damages to the system's utility [9]. According to his notion, an ecosystem's resilience depends on four significant aspects: Altering a system to an extent before losing its capacity to reorganize. The second aspect is the capacity of a system to safeguard itself from the variations caused. It determines the robustness of the prevailing system. The third aspect is the unstable position within the domain. Fourth is the inter-relation within the system. The resilient system thus planned and designed requires an overall analysis of interrelations between humans and the environment (urban form, land use distribution, connectivity, etc.) at varied temporal and spatial scales. Cities tolerate various disturbances before recovering /restructuring after a tremor.

Cutter et al. [10] analyzed various characteristics of communities in measuring resilience. By devising the baseline criteria, it is viable to observe and record variation and compare these variations to define physical and social attributes. Some of the composite indicators used in his study are the social vulnerability index, disaster risk index, predictive indicator of vulnerability, Human development index, environment sustainability index, ecological health index. In anthropology defined resilience as the potentiality of a community /society to combat /counter and reorganize so that society can function. He also analyzed several approaches for an adequate adaptation after a shock. Enhancing the physical infrastructure's capacity to resist the climate change impacts, increasing the natural system's adaptability by measuring the possible risks humans can mitigate, and discouraging further developments in the risk zone plays a vital role [11].

In management, Vale describes resilience as the capability of a market to operate or counter the prior function after a distraction [12]. This process involves the interlinked capacity to design flow chains of disruptions and resilience, including retaliation. The significant potential of resilience is the capability of a system to convert the flexibility to maximum supremacy by considering all the interconnections prevailing with varied domain in the system. Preventive and restorative resilience are two significant aspects of the complex nature of resilience. The system's capacity to function after the shock/stress wherein the average inadequacy is critical and crucial to utilize the available resources during the revival period efficiently. The study evaluates the individual and regional economic resilience to counter various disruptions. Here the resilience is interlinked with the minimizing approaches- mitigation and recovery management. Neglecting resilience in estimating loss will lead to blown up valuation. On the other hand, neglecting resilience in policy guidelines will lead to a failed scenario in mitigating and minimizing the failures or damages.

4.1 Bibliometric and informetric analysis

This article analyses the results by using bibliometric and informetric indicators. The results revealed, there has been an increase in the growth rate of water resilience literature since 2013. The water resilience-related publication's growth gradually increased from 4.75 per cent in 2013 to 24.45 per cent in 2020 (Figure 1). Furthermore, it has been found that publications on this subject have grown exponentially, with 74.82 per cent of papers published in the past five years. As a whole, scholars from 65 countries have contributed to the publication in the water resilience area. All countries contributing to the potency of publications in this research area are presented in Figure 2. Top on the list is the United States of America (USA), with a total of 26.64 per cent of publications, followed by England (16.78 per cent) and China (12.40) per cent. This study then classified the published research by topic area, as shown in Figure 3. Altogether, the distribution suggests that the study on water resilience arises in diverse areas, including Environmental Science, Water Resource, Green, Sustainable Science & Technology, Ecology and Urban Planning. As per the analysis, about 47.45 per cent of the documents examined falls in the Environmental Science area, followed by Water Resources (29.56 per cent). The Sustainability journal has 8.40 per cent (23 articles) of the total articles, followed by Water (15 articles) and Science of the Total Environment (9 articles).

1.png

Figure 1. Publication by year and annual growth

2.png

Figure 2. Geographical distribution of publications

3.png

Figure 3. Subject area

4.png

Figure 4. Network analysis

Figure 4 depicts the network and cluster analysis of the authors' key terms. In the network visualization, the keywords and the authors are represented in pink and green coloured circles. The top five terms in the papers are climate change adaptation, sustainability, environmental issues, vulnerability, and policy intervention. The size of the label and the circle determines the heft of the item. The higher the weightage of an item, the larger the label and the circle of the item. Lines between elements represent links. By default, 100 lines are displayed at most, meaning the 100 most robust connections between components. In the visualization, the pertinence of the journals concerning the co-citation linkages is indicated in the spacing between the two journals. In general, the closer two journals are spaced to each other, the stronger their relatedness. Lines also represent the most robust co-citation links between journals.

4.2 Dimensions of water resilience

The aspects of water resilience are studied and tabulated for further analysis. The dimensions considered for analysis are multifunctionality, redundancy, interconnectedness, robustness, vulnerability reduction capacity, adaptability, efficiency, sustainability, tenacity and rapidity are elucidated in Table 1.

Table 1. Dimensions of water resilience

4.3 Dimensions of water governance

The prevailing dimensions of water governance are studied and tabulated for further analysis. The dimensions considered for analysis are comprehensive approach, socially equitable, adaptive capacity, systematic intervention, inclusiveness, technical feasibility, preparedness, smart monitoring, resilience impact analysis, financial viability and public/ stakeholder engagement, elucidated in Table 2.

Table 2. Dimensions of water governance

The systematic Delphi technique helped in formulating the governance gaps. The knowledge experts included in the process are from the State and Central water authorities, Water supply and sewerage boards, Disaster management authorities. Table 3 illustrates the identified gaps in India's water governance. A structured questionnaire based on the gaps, using a ‘five-point Likert scale (from very low = 1 to very high = 5)’, assessed each gap's relevance in the ranking round. The Wilcoxon test findings aided in analyzing the results' credibility since there is no significant difference between the first and second ranking responses for 10 of the 12 gaps. The mean value indicates the severity of gaps. Each of these is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. Further, Friedman non-parametric test helped in prioritizing the identified gaps (N=30; df = 11; p-value = 0.00).

The lack of a comprehensive framework in enhancing resilience in the water system is one of the critical gaps identified in the governance system (M = 4.47). The present framework includes flood management guidelines, environmental protection act; drought management policy; disaster management plan and groundwater bill. However, a comprehensive framework for resilience planning towards water-related disruptions is essential. Another identified gap is the minimal interlink between various sectors wherein the plans formulated are non-cohesive and fragmented, addressing generic issues.

The next gap is the functional inefficiency in resources and infrastructure. Urban risks (created due to the urban processes and lack of resources or access to them) are not well understood or enacted. Even risks, such as water scarcity, are still recognized in the agricultural/rural context and not identified as disasters or risks in the urban. More in-depth work is required to define these risks and allocate resources and infrastructure to combat them. Another gap is the lack of preparedness/monitoring system to forecast the upcoming water-related risks. Although the National Disaster Management Plan (2016) signal a shift towards a more comprehensive risk reduction approach. Legal frameworks and funding are still limited to rescue and response and not risk reduction and preparedness in practice. There is a need to strengthen the regional observational system for drought monitoring to balance the existing as well as required meteorological, hydrological monitoring systems. Demand-based forecasting and the analytical methodologies for drought analysis and vulnerability assessment should be enhanced at the local and regional level. Another crucial gap is the delay in implementing and executing the schemes, which increases the damages (M= 4.23). When implementing these policies is not phased, it will lead to chaos and not serve its purpose. The history of shocks is as crucial as the future projections wherein the city needs to adapt and recover from the disruptions it has encountered.

The next gap is the non-inclusive of impact analysis and challenges in various subsystems. It provides an in-depth understanding of the implications of a proposed change, allowing for better-informed decisions. It examines the changes to identify components that may need to be established, altered, or discarded. It also identifies the time and resources required to implement resilience measures. The most crucial gap is the lack of integrated strategic policy planning encompassing all water-related disruptions (M=4.73). This will lead to the formulation of fragmented plans, which will not be suitable for a comprehensive approach. The guidelines pertain to flood management, drought management or environmental management but not an inclusive and integrated process encompassing all water-related threats to enhance resilience. Another gap is the overlapping of tasks across organizations. Decision-making and planning mechanisms are diversified across multiple organizations. The roles and responsibilities of various government entities are not clearly defined.

Water policy formulation entails identifying relevant technological solutions to availability, quality and water demands. The first stage in water policy reform would be to do detailed institutional modelling to determine who decides, what decisions can be made, and at what level. The next gap is the inadequate funding and transparency of plans detailing the funding mechanisms. Due to the extreme low recognition of water resilience and the lack of rules, the government does not give a reasonable budget in building resilience before the disaster. Financial status and water service quality are inextricably linked. Another gap is the public/stakeholder participation. The government does not make an effort to involve local stakeholders at all decision-making stages, planning, development, operation, and maintenance. It does not consider local engagement to enhance management of the present water issue, which is the consequence of a top-down process. As a governance paradigm, user engagement in water management fosters public confidence.

Table 3. Governance gaps- prioritization (n=30)

Another gap is the lack of using appropriate technology in risk reduction. Though it is included in the Master Plans, a technical acquaintance in development authorities are still inadequate. There is also a lack of using technology in an efficient water management mechanism to enhance resilience. The next gap is the lack of research in water resilience. The majority of academic research is not sufficiently practical in culminating and analyzing all the water-related risks. It either focuses only on drought / flood crisis management. Solutions to present and future water challenges must be focused on "resilience" which necessitates a multidisciplinary and trans-disciplinary approach.