International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Assessing vulnerability and capacity of Bhubaneswar as a progressive

smart-city: An empirical case study of Fani cyclone impact on the city
Neha Kawyitri a, Ankit Shekhar b, *
a
Malaviya Centre for Peace Research, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
b
Department of Environmental Sciences System, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study aims to assess the vulnerability and capacity of Bhubaneswar, India’s first smart-city, to the most
Vulnerability recent extremely severe cyclonic (ESC) storm ‘Fani’ which ravaged the city on May 3, 2019. After 2 weeks of its
Capacity impact, this study conducted a household survey in the central part of Bhubaneswar city (comprising of different
Social & human
wards), where smart-city projects were implemented and ongoing. Survey questions categorized into Social &
Financial
Smart-city
Human, Financial, Physical, and Smart-city factors and their corresponding indicators were chosen through
Natural disasters literature review and some modified based on local conditions. A total of 22 vulnerability and 40 capacity in­
dicators were used to calculate the vulnerability and capacity index. The result indicates that overall capacity
overweighs the overall vulnerability in the central part of the city during the Fani cyclone. Specifically, the city
was more vulnerable based on Financial factors, whereas more capable and smartly prepared for the cyclone in
the context of Social & Human factors, Physical factors, and Smart-city factors. The study indicates the mitigating
impact of the smart-city project in the central Bhubaneswar city area and applauds the step taken by the gov­
ernment for preparation during such an extreme event. The realizations of these results will help the government
to further improve its disaster management plan with important infrastructural modification highlighted in this
study.

1. Introduction (IFRC), defines vulnerability as “the diminished capacity of an individ­

Climate is changing since the origin of the Earth, but the recent
climate change significantly affects the ways of living in the community
[1,2]. Climate change is enhancing the intensity and frequency of nat­
ural disastrous events (e.g. severe cyclonic storm), which will have
adverse effects on socio-economic development and living communities
[3]. The eastern coastal regions of India have been frequently affected
by cyclones originating from the Bay of Bengal such as Phailin in 2013,
Hudhud in 2014 [4,5]. It is essential to understand the origin and
development of vulnerability for managing disaster risk effectively [6,
7]. Recognizing and measuring disaster risk and vulnerability before and
after a natural disaster are imperious tasks for effective and long-term
disaster-risk reduction [8]. “The vulnerability has emerged as a widely
used concept in global environmental change, disaster risk manage­
ment, and climate change adaptation” [9]. Many approaches for
assessing vulnerability rely on an assessment of capacity as a baseline for
understanding how vulnerable people are to a particular hazard
[10–13]. The International Federation of Red Crescent Climate Change
ual or group to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact
of natural or man-made hazards”. On the other hand, capacity refers to
“all the strengths, attributes, and resources available within a commu­
nity, organization, or society to manage and reduce disaster risk and
strengthen resilience” [14].
Many studies have assessed the vulnerability of the eastern coastal
regions of India including the state of Odisha (see Ref. [15,16]. The
analysis and ranking of the various coastal districts in Odisha predom­
inantly vulnerable to cyclone and floods have been undertaken by
building a vulnerability index [17]. “An alternative approach have been
developed for identifying vulnerable areas based on cluster analysis”
[18,19]. The analysis of vulnerability over different periods and the
changes in vulnerability of people have been done for the coastal dis­
tricts of Odisha by focusing on indicators of agricultural growth, infra­
structure, industrial development, demography, occupational,
geographical, climate variability, and extreme event-related indicators
[20].
However, the existing literature lacks empirical studies to determine

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ankit.shekhar@usys.ethz.ch (A. Shekhar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101986
Received 4 June 2020; Received in revised form 6 October 2020; Accepted 22 November 2020
Available online 28 November 2020
2212-4209/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Neha Kawyitri, Ankit Shekhar, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101986
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar
the vulnerability and capacity of cities, and none for progressive smart
cities in India. Apart from vulnerability assessment of the much focused
coastal rural regions, there is a need for such assessments for urban cities
as more people migrate to live in cities. Filling this knowledge gap, an
empirical study to assess the vulnerability and capacity of India’s first
progressive smart-city, Bhubaneswar, to the most recent extremely se­
vere cyclone (ESC) ‘Fani’ is presented here. Such assessments are vital
for the proper development and evolution of Bhubaneswar as a smart-
city.
Bhubaneswar city located in the Khordha district is the state capital
of Odisha. Bhubaneswar was selected as the first choice of the Ministry
of Urban Development (MoUD) flagship smart-city project on January
28, 2016, to build Bhubaneswar as India’s first smart city. While in it’s
the fourth year of progress, on May 3, 2019, Bhubaneswar faced an ESC
‘Fani’. ESC ‘Fani’ is the 10th such cyclone to hit India in the past 52
years, and the strongest tropical cyclone to strike the Indian state of
Odisha since the 1999 Odisha cyclone [5]. According to the Damage,
Loss, and Needs Assessment (DLNA) report, at least 64 people have been
killed by the Fani cyclone and total damage was estimated at 241,760
million INR, mostly in property damage and the relief in Odisha [4]. A
good proportion of this damage occurred in the progressive smart-city of
Bhubaneswar.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Vulnerability and capacity
Vulnerability is a multidimensional concept associated with different
conceptualizations [21]. The vulnerability concept was introduced as a
response to pure hazard-oriented perception of disaster risk in the 1970s
but the concept has been changed now by the engagement of the po­
litical and structural causes of vulnerability within society [22]. During
the 1990s many works of literature on vulnerability emphasized the
importance of incorporating social and economic assets together with
physical and biophysical aspects of vulnerability to natural hazards
[23]. The vulnerability concept has been continuously widening
including susceptibility, exposure, coping capacity, and adaptive ca­
pacity into its definition [8]. Recently one of the better-known defini­
tions was formulated by the International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction [24], which defines vulnerability as ‘the condition deter­
mined by physical, social, economical and environmental factors pro­
cesses which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impacts of
hazards’.
Recognizing the role of capacity in reducing risk also indicates an
acknowledgment that people are not helpless victims [25,26]. IPCC’s
fourth assessment report defined that vulnerability to climate change is
the degree to which geophysical, biological, and socioeconomic systems
are susceptible to and unable to cope with, the adverse impact of climate
change while capacity is adjustments in a system’s behavior and char­
acteristics that enhance its ability to cope with external stresses and
allow a system to reduce the risk associated with hazards by reducing its
vulnerability [69]. Vulnerability refers to the propensity of exposed el­
ements such as human beings, their livelihoods, and assets to suffer
adverse effects when impacted by hazard events, on the other hand,
capacity refers to the ability of people and systems to use available skills
and resources to face and manage adverse conditions, emergencies, or
disasters [24,27–30]. Vulnerability is the clearest statement of the social
construction of risk factors in the context of disaster risk management
[31]. The interaction of society with the changing-physical world build
disaster risk by transforming physical events into hazards through social
processes that increase the exposure and vulnerability of population
groups, their livelihoods, production, support, infrastructure, and ser­
vices [32–34]. Improving capacity is often identified as the target of
policies and projects, based on the notion that strengthening capacity
will eventually lead to reduce risk and to reduce the impact of climate
change [18,35]. Capacity is typically used in humanitarian discourse to
2
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx
indicate the extent to which a system can survive the impact of an
extreme event. It suggests that people can deal with some degree of
destabilization, and acknowledges that at a certain point the capacity
may be exceeded.
2.2. Smart-city
The smart-city concept emerged from e-governance movements and
collaboration between technology and companies and government in
Europe and the United States in the late 1990s and early 2000s [36]. A
precursor to the Indian smart-city was the embrace of urban e-gover­
nance in the early to mid-2000s. In India, smart cities were seen as a
means to build on the coagulation of state and private sector interest in
infrastructure-led growth. According to the Ministry of Urban Devel­
opment, recognizing the importance of smart cities for the country’s
development, the Indian government has initiated a smart-city mission
to provide basic infrastructure to ensure the quality of life, a sustainable
environment, and smart solutions to the current issues in cities.
Smart cities and communities focus on the intersection between
energy, transport, and Information and Communication Technology
(ICT), which are also the fields that have received most of the EU’s
public smart cities related funding (under the Horizon 2020 program
“smart cities and communities” [67]). The smart-city assessment builds
on the previous experience of measuring environmentally friendly and
livable cities, embracing the concepts of sustainability and quality of life
but with the important and significant addiction of technological and
informational components [37]. Six dimensions of smart-city have been
identified in literature i.e. a smart economy, smart people, smart
mobility, smart governance, smart living, and smart environment [38].
According to the World Cities Report 2016, cities should focus on
creating a just environment to ensure justice and equity for improve­
ment in our quality of life and also for sustainable development and
making the city less vulnerable to natural disasters. The city can face any
natural disaster with the least damage to life and property. Smart peo­
ple, smart governance, smart living, smart environment can make city
vulnerability less to the risk of natural disasters. The Government of
India had launched the ‘Smart-city’ mission on June 25, 2015 to pro­
mote sustainable and inclusive cities that provide core infrastructure
and give a decent quality to its citizens, a clean and sustainable envi­
ronmental, and application of ‘smart’ solutions.
2.3. Framework of vulnerability and capacity
In the past few years, different varieties of frameworks have been
developed to better systematize different aspects of vulnerability as well
as the various alternatives of capacity and their measurements. A multi-
dimensional and holistic framework for assessing vulnerability- MOVE
framework developed to provide an improved conceptualization of
multidimensional vulnerability and incorporates the concept of adaptive
capacity into disaster risk management with three key factors: exposure,
susceptibility, and lack of resilience as well as six thematic dimensions of
vulnerability: physical, social, ecological, economic, cultural and insti­
tutional [39]. The Sustainable Livelihood Guidance sheet of the
Department For International Development (DFID) framed the
people-centered analysis and livelihood strategies for vulnerability
assessment which identifies five core asset categories or types of capital
upon which livelihoods are built: Human capital, Social capital, Natural
capital, Physical capital and Financial capital, these assets are funda­
mentally affected by critical trends as well as by shocks and seasonality –
over which they have limited or no control [40]. DFID facilitates the
identification of practical priorities for action and it is multidimensional,
people-centered as well as a holistic approach that supports livelihood
development. UN/ISDR conceptual framework describes the different
phases of disaster risk reduction such as vulnerability/capacity analysis,
risk assessment, early warning, and awareness-raising in which
vulnerability is a key factor of risk, classified into social, economic,
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar
physical, and environmental components [24]. Bohle’s double structure
of vulnerability framework describes vulnerability as an internal side i.e.
coping capacity from the impact of a hazard as well as an external side i.
e. exposure to risk and shocks [25]. Turner’s framework provides the
classes of components and linkages that comprise a coupled system’s
vulnerability to hazards such as linkages to human and biophysical
conditions, perturbations and stressors, exposures, and adaptive capac­
ity [41].
The quantification of vulnerability is a multidimensional phenome­
non and there is no specific approach has yet been standardized for
measuring vulnerability [13]. However, researchers have used various
methods to assess vulnerability and capacity using different dimensions
such as social, physical, financial, human, and institutional. Paul and
Mazumdar (2016) used factor analysis specifically the Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) method for the reduction of a large set of
variables in the districts of four eastern coastal states of India: West
Bengal, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and a union territory of
Puducherry, which shares a common coastline with the Bay of Bengal
[13]. Ahsan and Warner Ahsan and Warner [42] used a household
survey to assess the vulnerability of local socio-economic and biophys­
ical factors in Bangladesh. Phung et al., Phung et al. [43], used the an­
alytic hierarchy process and principal component analysis to evaluate
the vulnerability index for each province in the Mekong Delta region in
Vietnam. Similarly, Walker et al. [44], has also used an analytic hier­
archy process is used to produce a place-specific index of social
vulnerability in the Greater Victoria region in British Columbia, Canada.
Cutter examined the social vulnerability for all 3141 U S. counties by
producing a composite social vulnerability index score [45]. Rana and
Routray [9,46] used an index-based approach for assessing five di­
mensions of vulnerability—social, economic, physical/infrastructural,
institutional, and attitudinal vulnerability in Punjab province and also
the urban centers of Pakistan. Birkmann and Fernando Birkmann and
Fernando [47] used sustainable livelihood as a meta-framework to
structure the questionnaire survey and the analysis of the tsunami
census data. Scheuer presented an approach to modeling multicriteria
flood vulnerability which integrates the economic, social, and ecological
dimensions of risk and coping capacity and tested the approach in an
urban case study, the city of Leipzig, Germany [48]. Gain used an in­
tegrated risk assessment framework that combines physical, social, and
ecological dimensions for assessing flood risk in the eastern part of
Dhaka City [49]. Panthi assessed the livelihood vulnerability index and
IPCC vulnerability index, around the Gandaki River Basin of central
Nepal [50]. Similarly, Hahn developed the Livelihood Vulnerability
Index (LVI) to estimate climate change vulnerability in the Mabote and
Moma Districts of Mozambique [51]. Pandey et al., Pandey et al. [52],
evaluated the climate change vulnerability of Himalayan communities
through the Climate Vulnerability Index (CVI) and Current Adaptive
Capacity Index (CACI) including the five forms of capital leading to a
sustainable livelihood, i.e. human, natural, financial, social, and phys­
ical capital. This study adopted index-based vulnerability and capacity
assessment approach based on previous research [9,12,53] for assessing
social, human, physical, financial vulnerability, and capacity of a nat­
ural hazard in rural and city areas by doing the household survey.
Furthermore, the smart city indicators have been discovered in this
study for capacity assessment of the city.
Most of the current smart-city research is in line with Euro-American
notion of urban infrastructure, and might be underestimating for Indian
smart cities due to lack of theorization of ‘smart’ in Indian geography
[54,55]. The Indian Smart Cities Mission (SCM) was recently launched
in 2015 by Government of India (GoI), with a focus on urban redevel­
opment and retrofitting of existing cities, with Bhubaneswar being
ranked #1 among 100 cities in the SCM. Under the Indian SCM, the GoI
has the following viewpoint of a ‘smart-city’:
“There is no universally accepted definition of a smart city. It means
different things to different people. The conceptualization of smart city,
therefore, varies from city to city and country to country, depending on
3
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx
the level of development, willingness to change and reform, resources
and aspirations of the city residents.” [56].
“Some definitional boundaries are required to guide cities in the
Mission. In the imagination of any city dweller in India, the picture of
a smart city contains a wish list of infrastructure and services that
describes his or her level of aspiration. To provide for the aspirations
and needs of the citizens, urban planners ideally aim at developing
the entire urban eco-system, represented by the four pillars of
institutional, physical, social and economic infrastructure. This can
be a long-term goal and cities can work towards developing such
comprehensive infrastructure incrementally, adding on layers of
‘smartness’” [56].
Therefore, our Smart-city factor (SCF) related capacity indicators
was designed keeping in mind the four pillars of urban infrastructure
(institutional, physical, social and economic [56]; in context to capacity
towards extreme cyclones. Table 3d shows the SCF indicators and the
corresponding pillar of smart-city according to GoI, (2015) along with
an explanation of selecting the indicator. It is to be noted that the Indian
SCM was only in 4th year of its progress of urban redevelopment and
retrofitting, and thus Bhubaneswar is referred to as a ‘progressive
smart-city’, as it might presently be closer to a normal urban city rather
than an established smart-city from Euro-American region.
3. Methodology
3.1. Study area
Bhubaneswar is one of the upcoming and active cities in India. The
city center coordinates at 20.27◦ and 85.84◦ and is situated in the
eastern coastal plains. The city is divided into three zones – North zone,
South-East zone, and South-West zone with an area of 422 sq km. The
city can be broadly classified into different areas which namely consist
of the old city, the new planned city, added areas, and other peripheral
areas. Bhubaneswar was the first choice of the Ministry of Urban
Development (MoUD) for this flagship Smart-city Project. The city was
featured in the top 20 global cities of the world in the Global Smart-city
Performance Index 2017, according to a survey by UK-based Juniper
Research (Smart City Association, 2017). According to the District
Census Handbook (DCHB) [68], the city consists of a total of 260,000
households in which 119,778 households are good residence and 69,312
are livable residences. In comparison, the Bhubaneswar Development
Planning Area (BDPA) is home to nearly 1.3 million people spread out
over an area of approximately 1110 sq. km. Due to the coastal plain area,
the city is highly prone to cyclone hazards and multiple cyclones have
occurred in the city. The ESC ‘Fani’ hit the city on May 3, 2019. The ESC
‘Fani’ affected thousands of people, destroyed physical infrastructure.
Over one million trees that once stood tall provided green cover to the
city was demolished by the raging winds of cyclone Fani, several houses
destroyed and the cyclone also damaged the electricity and communi­
cation facility in the affected areas [57].
3.2. Sampling
For this study, we chose to analyze only the central part of Bhuba­
neswar city (the new-planned city), where most of the smart-city pro­
jects were implemented as shown in Fig. 1. The study area consists of a
total of 11 wards and encompasses important administrative buildings
and residential areas. According to the 2011 Census, the study area
consists of about 85,000 households, with both government quarters
and privately owned houses. This study area was also reported to be
greatly affected by the ‘Fani’ cyclone with structural damage to build­
ings and trees, being observed even after 15–20 days of cyclone impact.
A sample size of 96 households was calculated for 95% confidence in­
terval (the probability that the samples accurately reflect the attitude of
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar
Fig. 1. Study area consisting of the Bhubaneswar city wards (right figure-red polygons with ward numbers) in the Bhubaneswar municipality corporation (BMC;
right figure) of Odisha state (left figure).
the population) and 10% error of margin (Range in percentage, stating
by how much the population’s response differs from the sample), using
the method of Kirby et al. Kirby et al. [58]. Although, 5% error of margin
is the most common sampling strategy, however, due to financial and
technical constraints, a 10% error of margin was chosen, as done by
previous study [42]. Bhubaneswar is an educational hub of Odisha with
people coming to work and study there from all over the state. Houses
with residential family in Bhubaneswar for more than 5 years were only
chosen for the questionnaire survey.
3.3. Questionnaire design, household survey and data collection
From the framework of the Sustainable Livelihood Guidance sheet of
the Department for International Development (DFID), three key di­
mensions based on livelihood assets – Human, Social, and Financial are
taken to assess the vulnerability and capacity. One other dimension i.e.
Smart-city factors is added here in the key dimension to assess the ca­
pacity. Vulnerability and Capacity indices are calculated by trans­
forming indicators into weights as used by various researchers [9,12,46,
53,59,60].
A structured questionnaire was specifically designed for the house­
hold survey concerning vulnerability and capacity indicators through
literature review and the indicators relevant to this study based on the
Indian SCM for the smart-city factors. The questionnaire was divided
into four parts i.e. Social and Human factors, Financial factors, Physical
factors, and Smart-city factors. Each factor included both vulnerability
and capacity related questions separately (Tables 1 and 2). Each part
consisted of 10–25 questions and the complete questionnaire consists of
65 questions. Only close-ended questions were included in the ques­
tionnaire. Few questions were associated with pre- and post-cyclone
response, for example, damage of education and health institutions
both pre- and post-cyclone period was included. Explanations behind
every question are depicted in Tables 1 and 2. The household survey
data is published in the Mendeley data repository [70].
3.4. Indicators and index calculation
Each vulnerability and capacity indicator was based on a question. A
total of 22 indicators were selected for the vulnerability component
4
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx
(Table 1) and 40 indicators were selected for the capacity component
(Table 2). For index calculations, multidimensional approach based on
previous studies was used [9,12,46,53,60]. The indicators were divided
into different categories according to the nature and characteristics of
the indicators. These categories show the responses of the questionnaire
of the survey data and represent the degree of variation in each indi­
cator. For each category, weights were assigned depends on the number
of the categories and their vulnerability and capacity response. In­
dicators with only two levels of class i.e. yes or no were assigned with the
weight value of 1 and 0. For three categorical levels, the weight were
either [0.33, 0.67, and 1] or [0, 0.5, and 1], based on the relevance of the
weight. For the four-level category, the weight was 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and
1. In the vulnerability context, the highest vulnerability class was
assigned with a weight value of 1, while the least vulnerability class was
assigned with a weight value of 0 (see Table 1). In the capacity context,
the highest capacity class was assigned with a weight value of 1, while
the lowest capacity class was assigned with a weight value of 0 (see
Table 2). Thus the composite index for each component falls between
0 and 1. Considering the weights of indicators, original datasets were
calculated by the Composite Index (CI) using equation (1), Vulnerability
Index (VULI) using equation (2), and Capacity Index (CAPI) using
equation (3). Tables 1 and 2 show the indicators, classes, weights,
explanation, and the references which include the empirical studies for
calculating vulnerability and capacity index.
∑n
wi
CI = (1)
n
i=1
where CI is the composite index, w1 to ​ wn are respective weights
assigned to the classes of indicators, and n is the number of indicators
used for calculating the composite index.
∑25
VWi
Vulnerability Index(VULI) = (2)
i=1
n
∑40
CWi
Capacity Index(CAPI) = (3)
i=1
n
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
Vulnerability indicator, associated weights, explanation, and references used in this study.
(a) Social and Human Factors
Sr. Indicator Categories Weights Explanation References
#

1 Total Family Members <5 0 Larger the family size, the greater the number of people who are vulnerable to [12,45]
5 and Above 1 cyclone events.
2 Number of Children (<15 years old) 0 0 Households with a higher number of children under the age of 15 are more [43,50]
1 0.5 vulnerable due to their tender and little experience of cyclonic situation.
>1 1
3 Number of elders (>65 years old) 0 0 Households with a higher number of elders can increase vulnerability because of [48,50]
1 0.5 their mental and health related problems during calamities.
>1 1
4 Female to Male ratio (physical <1 0.25 Females are more vulnerable than males due to restricted mobility and limited [43,45]
dependency ratio) 1 to 2 0.50 physical strength.
2 to 3 0.75
>3 1
5 Number of Family member with a 0 0 Handicapped people or persons with serious illness need special assistance and [42,50,51]
serious illness or handicapped 1 0.5 hinder mobility in case of emergency, and therefore are more vulnerable to a
>1 1 hazard.
6 Type of family Nuclear 0 The joint family will be more vulnerable due to social capital. [9]
Joint 1
(b) Financial Factors

Sr. Indicator Categories Weights Explanation References

#

1 Monthly Family Income (INR) <15 k 1 Low-income household is more vulnerable and has a limited capacity to recover [44]
15 k to 30 k 0.67 from the cyclone.
>30 k 0.33
2 Primary occupation Government 0.33 Government employment is more secure in case of hazards than other occupations, [45,60]
Non-Government 0.67 like those associated with their own business.
Self 1
3 House ownership Own 0.33 House tenants cannot repair, maintain their building against the cyclone. [44,45]
Government 0.67
Rent 1
4 Household Loans Yes 1 Families with household loans are more vulnerable due to the lack of money. [50,51]
No 0
(c) Physical Factors

Sr. Indicator Categories Weights Explanation References

#

1 Type of house Pacca 0.33 Pacca houses are less vulnerable to floods compared to Kaccha (mud) houses. [49]
Semi-Pacca 0.67
Kaccha 1
2 Location near bus/train station & Yes 0 Houses near the bus station, railway station, and hospitals are less vulnerable as [9,45]
hospitals No 1 they can easily go to the safe places.
3 Location near construction site Yes 1 Houses near construction sites are more vulnerable due to the chances of damage to [9,45]
No 0 the house.
4* Loss and damage to the house Yes 1 Damaged houses before the cyclone are more vulnerable. [53]
No 0
5* Nearby health facilities damaged Yes 1 Damaged hospitals and medical shops before the cyclone are more vulnerable [53]
No 0 because they could not provide any medicine to people affected by the cyclone.
6* Nearby education facilities damaged Yes 1 Damaged schools and colleges affect education and escalate vulnerability. [53]
No 0
7 Type of electricity connection Regular 0 Households with irregular electricity connections are more vulnerable. [9,13]
Irregular 1
8 Type of water connection Supply + Self 0.25 Households with a limited period of supply water are more vulnerable due o the [13]
Supply (24 h) 0.50 insufficiency of water storage.
Self 0.75
Supply (limited 1
period)
9 Sanitation facilities Yes 0 Households with no access to sanitation facilities predispose their negative health [42,50,51]
No 1 outcomes which increases the vulnerability.
10 Drinking water facility Yes 0 Households with no access to drinking water are more vulnerable. [42]
No 1
11 Internet connection Yes 0 Households with no internet connection are more vulnerable due to the lack of [13]
No 1 communication.
12 Location near market and shops Yes 0 Households with nearby markets and shops are less vulnerable due to the –
No 1 availability of essential goods.

*Before Cyclone.

4. Results Physical factors, the city was financially more vulnerable with a mean
Financial vulnerability index (VULI) of 0.527 (Table 3 and Fig. 2),
4.1. Vulnerability assessment whereas the mean VULI for Social & Human factors and Physical factor
was 0.284 and 0.330, respectively. This higher financial vulnerability
Our results indicate that in comparison to Social & Human, and can be attributed to about 44% of the households earning less than 30 K

5
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Capacity indicators, associated weights, explanation, and references used in this study.
(a) Social and Human Factors

Sr. # Indicators Categories Weights Explanation References

1 Highest family education Primary 0.25 Higher education of family will help in a better understanding of protocols [42,49–51]
High school 0.50 and communication during the cyclone.
College 0.75
Above 1
College
2 Number of household members having 0 0 Households with skills like welding, plumbing, electrician, repairing, will [12]
livelihood skills (plumbing, electrician, 1 0.5 help in procuring extra livelihood sources.
repairing, etc.) >1 1
3 Good relation and trust with neighbors Yes 1 Good relations and trust with neighbors and community members can [12,48]
No 0 increase capacity in the form of information dissemination, any medical
help, and help in the evacuation.
4 Family members in other cities Yes 1 Households can move to other cities in case of a cyclone event and return [42,47,50]
No 0 when cyclone recedes.
5 Doctors in community or family Yes 1 Doctors can provide medical treatment to the affected people. [43]
No 0
6 Receiving time of cyclone warning (in days) ≤5 0.33 Timely warning of cyclone hazards allows people to move their belongings [12,49]
6 to 9 0.67 to safe places to minimize losses.
≥10 1
7 Unsafe feeling psychologically regarding To large 0.33 The psychological mindset of safe feeling during cyclone makes people [46]
cyclone extent more capable.
To some 0.67
extent
Not at all 1
8** Increase in crime rate in the week of cyclone Yes 0 Lesser the crime rate, the higher the capacity for safety. –
No 1
Cannot say 0.5
(b) Financial Factors

Sr. Indicators Categories Weights Explanation References

#

1 Number of earning members 1 0.33 Higher the number of earning members, the higher will be the capacity. [9,12]
2 0.67
>2 1
2 Multiple sources of income Yes 1 More than one source of income increases the capacity: if one source is [50,51]
No 0 affected by the cyclone, people can use another source to survive.
3** Financial help (expected) from government Yes 1 Households receiving any financial help against their losses are more able [47,52]
No 0 to recover from losses.
4 Owned houses or property elsewhere Yes 1 Households having property and house elsewhere are more capable to [12]
No 0 recover easily from any losses.
5 Type/Number of vehicles None 0.25 The higher the number of vehicles, the higher will be the capacity. They [9,13]
Two- 0.50 can go to safe places easily.
wheeler
Four- 0.75
wheeler
Both 1
(c) Physical Factors

Sr. Indicators Categories Weights Explanation References

#

1 Planned housing society Yes 1 Properly planned houses are less affected by the cyclone. [12]
No 0
2** Support from NGO or government for Yes 1 Households getting support from NGOs for house reconstruction have [53]
reconstruction No 0 more capacity to reconstruct.
3 Sewage and waste management facility Yes 1 Management of sewage and waste can make society more safe and capable. [12,13]
No 0
4 Household inverter or generator availability Yes 1 Households having an inverter or generator are more capable to survive. –
No 0
5** Medical facility damage Complete 0 Lesser the medical facility damaged after the cyclone, the higher the –
Partial 0.5 capacity to survive.
Not at all 1
6** Financial facility damage Complete 0 Lesser the financial facility damaged after the cyclone, the higher the –
Partial 0.5 capacity to recover from losses.
Not at all 1
7** Telecom facility damage Complete 0 Lesser the telecom facility damaged after the cyclone, the higher the [13]
Partial 0.5 capacity to communicate.
Not at all 1
8** Transportation facility damage Complete 0 Lesser the medical transportation damaged after the cyclone, the higher –
Partial 0.5 the capacity to move anywhere.
Not at all 1
9** Education facility damage Complete 0 Lesser the education facility damaged after the cyclone, higher the –
Partial 0.5 capacity to start the schools and colleges.
Not at all 1
10** Business/Employment damage Complete 0 –
(continued on next page)

6
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2 (continued )
Partial 0.5 Lesser the business facility damaged after the cyclone, the higher the
Not at all 1 capacity to earn money.
11** Electricity back to normal (in days) <5 1 The timely return of electricity can allow people to survive easily and –
5 to 10 0.75 safely.
11 to 15 0.50
>15 0.25
12** Water supply back to normal (in days) <5 1 Timely return of water supply can make peoples’ life easy. –
5 to 10 0.67
>10 0.33
13** Medical services back to normal (in days) <5 1 The normalization of medical services can allow people to survive safely. –
5 to 10 0.67
>10 0.33
(d) Smart-city Preparedness (steps by government)

Sr. Indicators Categories Weights Explanation References

#

1* Cleaning the area (sewage, garbage, and Yes 1 Cleaner the area, lesser the chances of damage and higher the capacity. –
waste management) – [P.I] No 0
2* Food and water supply storage – [S.I] Yes 1 Storage of food and water makes people easy to survive during the cyclone. –
No 0
Cannot say 0.5
3* First aid and medicine storage – [S.I] Yes 1 Storage of first aid and medicines make people safe during the cyclone. –
No 0
Cannot say 0.5
4* Evacuation arrangements – [I.I] Yes 1 Arrangements of evacuation make people capable of any damage to life. –
No 0
Cannot say 0.5
5* Working of helpline number – [I.I] Yes 1 People can use the helpline number in an emergency. –
No 0
Cannot say 0.5
6* Financial safety arrangements availability – Yes 1 Arrangements of financial safety can help property less damage. –
[I.I] No 0
Cannot say 0.5
7* Arrangements for temporary electricity – [P. Yes 1 Arrangements for temporary electricity can help people with their basic –
I] No 0 needs.
Cannot say 0.5
8* Preventions of important heritage places – Yes 1 Prevention of important heritage places can make the city more safe and –
[S.I] No 0 capable.
Cannot say 0.5
9* ATM/Bank conditions nearby – [E.I] Working 1€ People can collect money from working conditions of ATM or bank before (Maiti et al.,
Not working 0 the cyclone. 2015 [13];
10* The convenience of digital/online Yes 1 Digital transactions make things easy for people because the do not have to –
transactions – [E.I] No 0 keep cash with them all the time.
11** Inflation in the week of cyclone - [I.I] Yes 0 Lesser the inflation, the higher the capacity to survive. –
No 1
Cannot say 0.5
12* Awareness regarding smart-city - [S.I] Yes 1 Awareness regarding the smart-city makes people more capable. –
No 0.5
13* Awareness of smart-city projects – [S.I] Yes 1 Awareness of smart-city projects makes people more capable. –
No 0.33
Cannot say 0.67
14** Availability of volunteers for any help – [S.I] Yes 1 Higher the availability of volunteers, the higher the capacity. –
No 0
Cannot say 0.5

*Before Cyclone ** After Cyclone.

[P.I], [I.I], [S.I] and [E.I] refers to indicators from physical, institutional, social and economic infrastructure of smart-city pillars as described by GoI, (2015).

handicapped member resulted in lower Social & Human VULI (Table 4).
Table 3
Also in terms of Physical factors, the city parameters such as ‘Type of
Vulnerability Index (VULI) and Capacity Index (CAPI) (mean ± standard error)
House’, ‘Location near to the station (bus, railways) and hospitals’,
values for Bhubaneswar.
‘Nearby health facilities damaged’, ‘Nearby education facilities
Dimension VULI CAPI
damaged’, Type of electricity connection, ‘Type of water connection’,
Social and Human 0.284 ± 0.044 0.576 ± 0.025 ‘Sanitation facilities’, ‘Drinking water facilities’, and ‘Internet connec­
Financial 0.529 ± 0.037 0.418 ± 0.045 tion’ facilitated in lower vulnerability (Table 4). About 75% of house­
Physical 0.330 ± 0.028 0.431 ± 0.028
holds in the city were in good condition and 75% of households are
Smart-city Preparedness – 0.600 ± 0.034
Overall 0.381 ± 0.021 0.506 ± 0.021 nearer to either bus stand or railway station and hospitals (Table 4).
Furthermore, before the cyclone, about 70% of the health and education
facilities were properly working in good conditions (Table 4). However,
INR per month (Table 4). Additionally, about 62% of the households our response data reveals that the city was more vulnerable to the
were sustaining on non-government or self as a primary household cyclone in the context of some physical assets. E.g., about 13% and 19%
occupation, thereby inclining the city towards more vulnerably side. On of the households (Kaccha and few semi-pacca houses or urban slum)
the other hand, the Social & Human indicators like ‘Type of family’ lacked proper sanitation and drinking water facilities, respectively. It
(75% - nuclear; Table 4 & Fig. 3a), less number of elders in the family, was also found that 43.75% of electricity connection was irregular in the
less female to male ratio (average of 1.1), fewer families with the

7
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Factor-wise and overall Vulnerability and Capacity Index of Bhubaneswar as a progressive smart city.

4.2. Capacity assessment

Table 4
Summary statistics of important vulnerability indicators obtained from the
Capacity assessment of cyclone-affected people indicated striking
household survey (N = 96).
differences between each indicator. The city was found to be more
Sl Vulnerability Indicators Categories Bhubaneswar City % capable of handling the cyclone (Table 3 and Fig. 2). Table 5 describes
No. (N = 96)
the response percentages data of the important capacity parameters. In
1 Family Size <5 52.08 terms of social and human factors, the city was more capable with the
5 and Above 47.92
CAPI value 0.576 (See Table 3). Assets of social and human factors such
2 Type of Family Nuclear 75
Joint 25 as ‘Highest family education’ with 33.33% households having college-
3 Monthly Family Income (In <15 k 17.71 level education and 56.25% households having above college-level ed­
INR) 15 k – 30 k 26.04 ucation (master’s degree or above) as shown in Fig. 4a; ‘Good relation
>30 k 56.25
and trust with neighbors’ with 98.97% households have their good
4 Primary occupation Government 37.50
Non- 27.08
relationship with neighbors; ‘Receiving time of cyclone warning (in
Government days)’ with 45.83% households received the warning less than 5 days
Self 35.42 before the cyclone, 50% families received 5–10 days before and 4.17%
5 Type of House Pacca 75.00 made the city more capable of handling the cyclone (Table 5). On the
Semi-Pacca 21.87
other hand, the factors such as ‘Unsafe feeling psychologically regarding
Katcha 03.13
6 Location near to the station Yes 75 cyclone’ with 75% of households were feeling unsafe and they were
(bus, railways) and hospitals No 25 scared of the cyclone; ‘No. of household members having livelihood
7* Nearby health facilities Yes 30.20 skills (plumbing, electrician, repairing, etc.)’ with 78.13% households
damaged No 69.80 have no family member who knew any livelihood skills; ‘Doctors in
8* Nearby education facilities Yes 29.16
damaged No 70.84
community or family’ with only 30% households having doctors in their
9 Type of electricity connection Regular 56.25 family or community, are the reasons for making city somehow less
Irregular 43.75 socially capable to the cyclone (Table 5). In the context of financial
10 Type of water connection Supply (24 h) 15.62 factors, the city was less capable with CAPI value of 0.418 (See Table 3).
Self 48.95
Only 35.42% of households have two earning members and 12.50% of
Supply (limited 35.43
period) households have more than 2 earning members in families as shown in
11 Sanitation facilities Yes 86.46 Fig. 4c. Surprisingly, 67.71% of households did not expect any financial
No 13.54 help from the government. Only 40% of the households have another
12 Drinking water facility Yes 81.25 property of houses elsewhere. These assets imply that the city was
No 18.75
13 Internet connection Yes 56.25
financially less capable to handle the cyclone while the assets like ‘No. of
No 43.75 vehicles (type)’ with 87.50% households having vehicles added to the
financial capacity of the city to manage the cyclone. In terms of physical
*Before Cyclone.
factors, the city has a CAPI of 0.431 (Table 3 and Fig. 2) which indicates
that city was not capable to handle the cyclone due to the lack of fa­
city, 27.08% households have limited period of supply water connec­ cilities such as ‘Support from NGO or Government for reconstruction’,
tion, 23.96% households have their self-water connection which is ‘Sewage and waste management facility’, ‘Household inverter avail­
dependent on electricity connection and only 25% households have 24 h ability’, ‘Medical, Financial, Telecom, Transportation, Education, and
supply water connection (Table 4). This suggests that these three assets Business/Employment facility damaged after the cyclone’, ‘Electricity,
electricity, water, and internet connection made the city more vulner­ Water supply, and Medical services back to normal (in days)’. Only
able to the cyclone. Nevertheless, the total mean vulnerability score of 28.13% households received support from NGO and government for
the city is 0.381 which indicates that overall the city was slightly less their house reconstruction after 2 weeks of cyclone impact (Table 5).
vulnerable to the cyclone. With 37% of the households having an inverter in their houses and
repair of city electricity taking up to 15 days after the cyclone, affected
the physical capacity of the city (Table 5). Furthermore, about 95% of
medical facilities, 98% of financial facilities, 96% telecom facilities, 95%

8
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar
Fig. 3. (a–d). Vulnerability index across (a) Type of family, (b) House ownership, (c) Monthly family income, (d) primary occupation type.
transportation facilities, 95% education facilities were at least partially
damaged after the cyclone, thereby reducing the capacity of the city
(Table 5). Also, about 88% of people’s employment and business were
damaged or stopped after the cyclone. Compared to only 3% of the
households for electricity supply, about 30.21% of households got water
supply back within 5 days of cyclone impact. About 40% of the medical
shops and hospitals were opened within 5 days and most of the medical
services were back to normal within 10 days (Table 5).
However, in the context of smart-city factors, the city was more
capable and prepared to handle the situation with CAPI of 0.6 (Fig. 2).
Assets like ‘Cleaning the area (sewage, garbage, and waste manage­
ment)’ with 44% cleaned area before cyclone; ‘Food and water supply
storage’ with 55% households reporting storage of food and water
storage by the government; ‘First aid and medicine storage’ with 55.21%
households reporting medicine and first-aid storage before the cyclone;
with 81.25% of ATM/Bank in working condition and 67.71% house­
holds were using online or digital transaction (Fig. 4d) increased the
capacity of the city to the cyclone. Awareness of smart city projects in
the local area was a major factor in increasing the capacity (Fig. 4b).
Whereas, 67% of the report suggesting an increase in inflation, and 20%
of the report suggesting not working of helpline number tends to de­
creases the capacity in terms of smart city factors. Nevertheless, the
overall CAPI value of 0.6 shows that the city was more capable than
vulnerable in handling the cyclone.
9
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx
5. Discussions
Before the ‘Fani’ cyclone in 2019, Bhubaneswar was also hit by the
super cyclone of 1999. Such natural extreme and disastrous events can
significantly slow or stop the growth and development of a progressive
smart city like Bhubaneswar. The household survey results suggest that
the overall capacity of the city center area outranked its overall
vulnerability to the cyclone. The reason of this increased capacity can
be, in some way, attributed to the Indian Smart City Mission launched by
GoI in 2015, implemented in the city which made the city more capable
to handle the cyclone effect. Multi-hazard resistance houses were being
constructed for the cyclone-affected areas in Odisha under the Odisha
Disaster Recovery Project [4]. It is important to highlight that our
household survey sampling was done at 10% error of margin, therefore
population result will deviate by about 10% from the survey results
shown in Tables 3–5
A common opinion of ‘Bhubaneswar’s development went 5 years
back’, was noted during the household survey which did not sound
vague especially after looking at the infrastructural damage done to the
city by the strong winds gusting speed up to 140 km/h. Most of the
infrastructural development work in the city was either halted or
partially destroyed due to the cyclone. The ongoing smart-city projects
in the city were aimed to achieve the benchmarks of the globally
accepted Smart City norms with five integrated strategic pillars and ten
strategic directions under the Vision Strategic Plan (https://www.smart
citybhubaneswar.gov.in/smart-transformation/vision-strategic-plan).
Among many smart-city projects in the city, the relevant ones were the
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5 Table 5 (continued )

Summary statistics of important capacity indicators obtained from the house­ Sl. Capacity Indicators Categories Bhubaneswar City
hold survey (N = 96). No % (N = 96)
Sl. Capacity Indicators Categories Bhubaneswar City Cleaning the area (sewage, garbage, No 35.42
No % (N = 96) and waste management) Can’t say 20.83
1 Highest Family Education Primary 06.25 26 Food and water supply storage Yes 55.21
High School 04.17 No 33.33
College 33.33 Can’t say 11.46
Above 56.25 27 First aid and medicine storage Yes 55.21
2 Number of household members 0 78.13 No 32.29
having livelihood skills (plumbing, 1 17.71 Can’t say 12.50
electrician, repairing, etc.) >1 04.16 28 Working of helpline number Yes 34.37
3 Good relation and trust with Yes 98.96 No 20.84
neighbors No 01.04 Can’t say 44.79
4 Doctors in community or family Yes 30.21 29** Arrangements for temporary Yes 25
No 69.79 electricity No 60.42
5 Receiving time of cyclone warning ≤5 45.83 Can’t say 14.58
(in days) 6 to 9 50 31 Inflation after cyclone Yes 67.71
≥10 04.17 No 09.37
6 Unsafe feeling psychologically To a large 26.04 Can’t say 22.92
regarding cyclone extent
*Before Cyclone ** After Cyclone.
To some 48.96
extent
Not at all 25 ‘Smart Park’, ‘Integrated Improvement Infrastructure’, and ‘Socially
7 Number earning members 1 52.08 Smart Bhubaneswar’ (https://www.smartcitybhubaneswar.gov.in/p
2 35.42
rojects?1).
>2 12.50
8 Financial help (expected) from Yes 32.29 Under the ‘Smart Park’ project, three existing city parks were re-
government No 67.71 developed to allow more social gatherings for public walking, open
9 Owned houses or property elsewhere Yes 39.58 gym practices, yoga practice, etc., which are centric for building social
No 60.42 capacity in a city. Although the improved transport infrastructure (like
10 Number of vehicles (type) None 12.50
Two- 66.67
wide roads, intelligent traffic management, etc.) endured some dam­
wheeler ages, it was still in good shape carry the transportation in the city area
Four- 02.08 immediately after the cyclonic impact. However, much work was still on
wheeler going under the ‘Integrated Improvement Infrastructure’, like installing
Both 18.75
efficient utility services for water supply, sewage management, under­
11* ATM/Bank conditions nearby Working 81.25
Not 18.75 ground electric power lines, and solid waste management (https://
working www.smartcitybhubaneswar.gov.in/infrastructure-improvement). Had
12* The convenience of digital/online Yes 67.71 these works been completed, the city would have been more capable.
transactions No 32.29 Some of the constant household grievances were lack of electricity and
13 Support from NGO or government Yes 28.13
for reconstruction No 71.87
water supply for up to 10 days after the cyclonic impact. This also
14* Sewage and waste management Yes 65.62 affected medical and telecommunications in the city after the cyclone.
facility No 34.38 Furthermore, their complaints about the lack of temporary electricity
15 Household inverter or generator Yes 36.46 during this period were also recorded. However, most of the financial
availability No 63.54
institutions including banks and ATM were working properly to prepare
16** Medical facility damage Complete 48.96
Partial 45.83 people for the calamity. Furthermore, the transition of the city towards
Not at all 05.21 digital/online transactions also acted as a buffer during the aftermath of
17** Financial facility damage Complete 62.50 the cyclone. These important steps at national and state levels are very
Partial 35.42 fundamental in mitigating the impacts of such extreme events and thus
Not at all 02.08
18** Telecom facility damage Complete 67.71
should be encouraged. The ‘Socially Smart Bhubaneswar’ project is an
Partial 28.12 important step taken by the government to make the city more capable
Not at all 04.17 by increasing the availability and accessibility of social and health
19** Transportation facility damage Complete 50 development programs to the people. Under such programs, the gov­
Partial 44.79
ernment aims for skill development, promotion of micro, small and
Not at all 05.21
20** Education facility damage Complete 58.33 medium enterprise, etc (https://www.smartcitybhubaneswar.gov.in/s
Partial 36.46 ocial-smart). Such programs aim to make the community self-
Not at all 05.21 dependent, thereby increasing adaptive capacity. The work and efforts
21** Business/Employment damage Complete 46.87 by the people and the government were appreciable as the city was up
Partial 41.67
Not at all 11.46
and running after 2 weeks of such a disastrous impact. An increase in
22** Electricity back to normal (in days) <5 03.13 inflation was a concern for financially weak communities and they ex­
5 to 10 69.79 pected the government to regulate it. Although most of the people were
11 to 15 20.83 aware of the smart city projects and appreciated the development in the
06.25
>15
city, they were still skeptical to expect any financial help from the
23** Water supply back to normal (in <5 30.21
days) 5 to 10 56.25 government after the cyclone. Upon further conversation during the
>10 13.54 questionnaire, it was clear that this dis-trust was from the period of 1999
24** Medical services back to normal (in <5 40.62 super-cyclone. However, few people were optimistic even after their
days) 5 to 10 53.13 worse experience during the 1999 super-cyclone.
06.25
Although, comparing Bhubaneswar to smart megacities from the
>10
25** Yes 43.75
west would be unfair for the former, but can highlight important aspect
of preparedness and increased capacity that Bhubaneswar can learn

10
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar
Fig. 4. (a–d). Capacity index across (a) Education level, (b) Smart-city awareness, (c) Number of earning members in the family, (d) Convenience of online
transactions.
from, especially in context of cyclone vulnerability and capacity. The
socioeconomic and physical vulnerability of New Orleans, United States
to hurricane ‘Katrina’ in 2005 is well documented [61,62]. As Bhuba­
neswar, the increased socio-economic vulnerability was due to poverty
level, age and disability, gender, transportation etc., whereas, highly
successful evacuation plans resulted in minimum fatalities [62]. How­
ever, the increased physical vulnerability of New Orleans to hurricane
‘Katrina’ due to inadequate structural infrastructure and inappropriate
land use (e.g., exploitation of coastal ecosystem) resulted in citywide
flooding, thereby paralyzing the city [61]. The case study of Katrina’s
impact on New Orleans highlights the importance of sustainable
development of cities with major emphasis on land use management –
an important lesson for Bhubaneswar’s development into a smart city.
Another smart megacity, New York was also impacted by a hurricane –
‘Sandy’ in 2012. Social vulnerability study conducted by de Sherbinin
and Bardy, de Sherbinin and Bardy [63], concluded that, in New York
the socially vulnerable people were not differentially affected by the
hurricane ‘Sandy’, however the vice-versa was true in case of extreme
flooding in Mumbai, India. This highlights the contrasting geographical
differences of social factors on vulnerabilities of urban area to extreme
events. Haraguchi and Kim, Haraguchi and Kim, [64]; studied the crit­
ical infrastructure in New York city to assess the interconnected nature
of risk to Hurricane ‘Sandy’, and concluded that the electricity infra­
structure was the more crucial infrastructure and propagator of risk. The
same can also be true about Bhubaneswar, as electricity cutoff, which
lasted for about 10 days, might have propagated the vulnerability to­
wards medical, financial and educational sectors. Such study of inter­
connected infrastructure risk is also recommended for the smart-cities in
India, which can only be possible if important infrastructure datasets are
made available. Moving to the impact and adaptation of urban areas in
the Southwest Pacific (SWP) – where 76% of the natural disasters are
tropical cyclone (TC) [65]. Magee et al., Magee et al. [66], attempted to
11
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx
study the TC impacts and capacitive adaptation in the urban SWP areas
due to TC ‘Pam’ that occurred in March 2015. They highlighted the
positive importance of awareness in terms of both the TCs, its risk
perception and what to do in such a situation, and its positive impact of
adaptive capacity. Similar results of awareness (although only in terms
of smart-city projects), was also obtained in this study, with high
awareness was associated to high adaptive capacity of the household.
6. Conclusions
This study makes an attempt to assess the vulnerability and capacity
of India’s first smart-city, Bhubaneswar, to an extremely severe cyclonic
storm ‘Fani’, which ravaged the city on 3rd May 2019. There is a lack of
vulnerability and capacity assessment of Indian smart cities to extreme
events in the literature, which this study aims to fill. Such studies can
play a critical role in shaping the development of cities under the Indian
Smart City Mission (SCM). The vulnerability and capacity of Bhuba­
neswar was assessed in terms of social & human, financial, physical, and
smart-city (preparedness) indicators. A total of 22 vulnerability and 40
capacity indicators were created based on literature review and local
conditions to prepare a household survey questionnaire. A total of 96
household survey samples were collected in the central-city area of
Bhubaneswar where smart-city projects were implemented so as to focus
on the smart-city project’s impact on the city’s vulnerability and ca­
pacity to the cyclone. The results indicate that Bhubaneswar was overall
more capable than vulnerable to the ‘Fani’ cyclone. To some extent, the
city was smartly prepared for the cyclone and thus faced less damage
and people felt safer during the Fani cyclone than that of the previous
cyclone. Calculating the vulnerability index found that people were
financially more vulnerable than other indicators. On the other hand,
capacity index calculation shows that people were socially more
capable, and also the city was more capable as per the smart-city
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar
preparedness indicator. Lack of some basic preparations and mainte­
nance, environmental smartness, and infrastructure development were
the reasons for increasing vulnerability while capacity measures were
smart-city implementation, preparation for less damage, social in­
stitutions, awareness of risk and warning before the cyclone. This in­
dicates the impact of the smart-city project in the central Bhubaneswar
city area, and the step taken by the government for preparation during
such an extreme event is creditable. However, smart-city development
should be prioritized with the most essential and crucial infrastructure
such a electrification, cleaner production, sustainable development and
supply chains, before integrating smart solutions. In theory, these
crucial infrastructure will establish a strong base for increased capacity
and reduced vulnerability of the smart-city to natural disasters. A sig­
nificant limitation of this study is its focus only on the central part of
Bhubaneswar city and call for an analysis of the whole area of the city.
Further analysis could also analyze and track the recovery of the city
from such extreme events. Finally, similar vulnerability and capacity
assessment of other smart cities in India can help the government to
improve its infrastructure and policies.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Mr.
Arbind Yadav, Ms. Smaranika Mahapatra, Mr. Ashutosh Pati, Mr. Janaki
Mohapatra, and Mr. Birabhadra Rout for their help during the household
survey campaign. The authors are also grateful to Dr. Prashant Kumar
for his comments during the drafting of this manuscript. We acknowl­
edge ETH-Bibliothek for APC funding of this research article.
References
[1] IPCC, Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. https://www.
ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg2/, 2007.
[2] S. Solomon, M. Manning, M. Marquis, D. Qin, Climate Change 2007-the Physical
Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the IPCC, vol. 4, Cambridge university press, 2007.
[3] G. Azam, M.E. Huda, M.A.H. Bhuiyan, M. Mohinuzzaman, M. Bodrud-Doza, S.D.
U. Islam, Climate Change and Natural Hazards Vulnerability of Char Land (Bar
Land) Communities of Bangladesh: Application of the Livelihood Vulnerability
Index (LVI), Global Social Welfare, 2019, pp. 1–13.
[4] OSDMA, Odisha State Disaster Management Authority Cyclone Fani 2019 Odisha
DLNA Report, Government of Odisha, Odisha, India, 2019. https://www.osdma.
org/publication/cyclone-fani-2019-dlna-report/.
[5] IMD, India Meteorological Department, Cyclone, Ministry of Earth Science,
Government of India, New Delhi, 2019. https://www.juniperresearch.com/resea
rchstore/iot-m2m/smart-cities.
[6] A. Maskrey, Disaster Mitigation: A Community Based Approach, Oxford England
Oxfam, 1989.
[7] A. Lavell, Natural and Technological Disasters: Capacity Building and Human
Resource Development for Disaster Management. Concept Paper Commissioned by
Emergency Response Division, United Nations Development Program, Geneva,
Switzerland, 1999.
[8] J. Birkmann, Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability,
usefulness and policy implications, Environ. Hazards 7 (1) (2007) 20–31.
[9] I.A. Rana, J.K. Routray, Multidimensional model for vulnerability assessment of
urban flooding: an empirical study in Pakistan, Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 9 (3) (2018)
359–375.
[10] O.D. Cardona, M.K. Van Aalst, J. Birkmann, M. Fordham, G. Mc Gregor, P. Rosa, R.
S. Pulwarty, E.L.F. Schipper, B.T. Sinh, H. Décamps, M. Keim, Determinants of risk:
exposure and vulnerability, in: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters
to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 65–108.
12
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx
[11] A.R. Hamidi, Z. Zeng, M.A. Khan, Household vulnerability to floods and cyclones in
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 46 (2020) 101496.
[12] A. Jamshed, I.A. Rana, U.M. Mirza, J. Birkmann, Assessing relationship between
vulnerability and capacity: an empirical study on rural flooding in Pakistan, Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct. 36 (2019) 101109.
[13] J. Mazumdar, S.K. Paul, Socioeconomic and infrastructural vulnerability indices
for cyclones in the eastern coastal states of India, Nat. Hazards 82 (3) (2016)
1621–1643.
[14] IFRC, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment – Guidelines, International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, 2008.
[15] C.S. Bahinipati, Assessment of Vulnerability to Cyclones and Floods in Odisha,
India: a District-Level Analysis, Current Science, 2014, pp. 1997–2007.
[16] S. Maiti, S.K. Jha, S. Garai, A. Nag, A.K. Bera, V. Paul, R.C. Upadhaya, S.M. Deb, An
assessment of social vulnerability to climate change among the districts of
Arunachal Pradesh, India, Ecol. Indicat. 77 (2017) 105–113.
[17] M. Mohapatra, D.P. Nayak, B.K. Bandyopadhyay, Evaluation of cone of uncertainty
in tropical cyclone track forecast over North Indian Ocean issued by India
Meteorological Department, Tropical Cyclone Research and Review 1 (3) (2012)
331–339.
[18] U. Sharma, A. Patwardhan, An empirical approach to assessing generic adaptive
capacity to tropical cyclone risk in coastal districts of India, Mitig. Adapt.
Strategies Glob. Change 13 (8) (2008) 819–831.
[19] U. Sharma, A. Patwardhan, Methodology for identifying vulnerability hotspots to
tropical cyclone hazard in India, Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 13 (7)
(2008) 703–717.
[20] D.K. Yadav, A. Barve, Analysis of socioeconomic vulnerability for cyclone-affected
communities in coastal Odisha, India, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 22 (2017)
387–396.
[21] M. Gallardo, Identifying vulnerability to poverty: a critical survey, J. Econ. Surv.
32 (4) (2018) 1074–1105.
[22] A. Panda, Assessing vulnerability to climate change in India, Econ. Polit. Wkly. 44
(16) (2009) 105–107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40279163.
[23] W.N. Adger, N. Brooks, G. Bentham, M. Agnew, S. Eriksen, New Indicators of
Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,
Norwich, 2005.
[24] UNISDR, Living with Risk, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
[25] H.G. Bohle, Vulnerability and criticality: perspectives from social geography, IHDP
update 2 (2001) 3–5.
[26] J.C. Gaillard, Vulnerability, capacity and resilience: perspectives for climate and
development policy, J. Int. Dev.: J. Dev. Sustain. Agric. 22 (2) (2010) 218–232.
[27] UNDRO, Natural Disasters and Vulnerability Analysis, Report of Experts Group
Meeting, Geneva, 1980 of 9-12 July 1979, UNDRO.
[28] D.M. Liverman, Vulnerability to global environmental change, in: Understanding
Global Environmental Change: The Contributions of Risk Analysis and
Management, vol. 26, 1990, pp. 27–44.
[29] UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction),
Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. http://unisdr.org/eng/library/lib
-terminology-eng.html.
[30] P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, I. Davis, B. Wisner, At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s
Vulnerability and Disasters, Routledge, 2014.
[31] Y.F. Aysan, Keynote paper. Vulnerability assessment, in: Natural Disasters:
Protecting Vulnerable Communities: Proceedings of the Conference Held in
London, vols. 13–15, Thomas Telford Publishing, 1993, pp. 1–14.
[32] R. Chambers, Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, Coping and Policy, 1989.
[33] G. Wilches-Chaux, Disasters, Ecologism and Professional Education, SENA,
Popayan, Colombia, 1989.
[34] T. Cannon, Disasters, Vulnerability Analysis and the Explanation of
‘natural’disasters, vol. 1, development and environment, 1994, pp. 13–30.
[35] U. Sharma, A. Patwardhan, D. Parthasarathy, Assessing adaptive capacity to
tropical cyclones in the East coast of India: a pilot study of public response to
cyclone warning information, Climatic Change 94 (1–2) (2009) 189–209.
[36] A. Coe, G. Paquet, J. Roy, E-governance and smart communities: a social learning
challenge, Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 19 (1) (2001) 80–93.
[37] M.L. Marsal-Llacuna, J. Colomer-Llinàs, J. Meléndez-Frigola, Lessons in urban
monitoring taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the Smart
Cities initiative, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90 (2015) 611–622.
[38] R. Giffinger, C. Fertner, H. Kramar, E. Meijers, City-ranking of European Medium-
Sized Cities. Cent, Reg. Sci., Vienna UT, 2007, pp. 1–12.
[39] J. Birkmann, O.D. Cardona, M.L. Carreño, A.H. Barbat, M. Pelling,
S. Schneiderbauer, S. Kienberger, M. Keiler, D. Alexander, P. Zeil, T. Welle,
Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework, Nat.
Hazards 67 (2) (2013) 193–211.
[40] U.K. DFID, Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, DFID, London, 1999, p. 445.
[41] B.L. Turner, R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W. Corell,
L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J.X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, C. Polsky,
A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. Unit. States Am. 100 (14) (2003) 8074–8079.
[42] M.N. Ahsan, J. Warner, The socioeconomic vulnerability index: a pragmatic
approach for assessing climate change led risks–A case study in the south-western
coastal Bangladesh, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 8 (2014) 32–49.
[43] D. Phung, S. Rutherford, F. Dwirahmadi, C. Chu, C.M. Do, T. Nguyen, N.C. Duong,
The spatial distribution of vulnerability to the health impacts of flooding in the
Mekong Delta, Vietnam, Int. J. Biometeorol. 60 (6) (2016) 857–865.
N. Kawyitri and A. Shekhar
[44] B.B. Walker, C. Taylor-Noonan, A. Tabbernor, H. Bal, D. Bradley, N. Schuurman, J.
J. Clague, A multi-criteria evaluation model of earthquake vulnerability in
Victoria, British Columbia, Nat. Hazards 74 (2) (2014) 1209–1222.
[45] S.L. Cutter, B.J. Boruff, W.L. Shirley, Social vulnerability to environmental hazards,
Soc. Sci. Q. 84 (2) (2003) 242–261.
[46] I.A. Rana, J.K. Routray, Integrated methodology for flood risk assessment and
application in urban communities of Pakistan, Nat. Hazards 91 (1) (2018)
239–266.
[47] J. Birkmann, N. Fernando, Measuring revealed and emergent vulnerabilities of
coastal communities to tsunami in Sri Lanka, Disasters 32 (1) (2008) 82–105.
[48] S. Scheuer, D. Haase, V. Meyer, Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by
integrating economic, social and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping
capacity: from a starting point view towards an end point view of vulnerability,
Nat. Hazards 58 (2) (2011) 731–751.
[49] A.K. Gain, V. Mojtahed, C. Biscaro, S. Balbi, C. Giupponi, An integrated approach of
flood risk assessment in the eastern part of Dhaka City, Nat. Hazards 79 (3) (2015)
1499–1530.
[50] J. Panthi, S. Aryal, P. Dahal, P. Bhandari, N.Y. Krakauer, V.P. Pandey, Livelihood
vulnerability approach to assessing climate change impacts on mixed agro-
livestock smallholders around the Gandaki River Basin in Nepal, Reg. Environ.
Change 16 (4) (2016) 1121–1132.
[51] M.B. Hahn, A.M. Riederer, S.O. Foster, The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: a
pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change—a case
study in Mozambique, Global Environ. Change 19 (1) (2009) 74–88.
[52] R. Pandey, S.K. Jha, J.M. Alatalo, K.M. Archie, A.K. Gupta, Sustainable livelihood
framework-based indicators for assessing climate change vulnerability and
adaptation for Himalayan communities, Ecol. Indicat. 79 (2017) 338–346.
[53] A. Jamshed, I.A. Rana, J. Birkmann, O. Nadeem, Changes in vulnerability and
response capacities of rural communities after extreme events: case of major floods
of 2010 and 2014 in Pakistan, J. Extreme Events 4 (2017) 1750013.
[54] A. Roy, The 21st-Century Metropolis: New Geographies of Theory, The Futures of
the City Region, 2013, p. 31.
[55] D. Prasad, T. Alizadeh, What Makes Indian Cities Smart? A Policy Analysis of Smart
Cities Mission, Telematics and Informatics, 2020, p. 101466.
[56] GoI, Smart Cities: Mission Statement & Guidelines, Government of India, Ministry
of Urban Development, 2015. http://smartcities.gov.
in/upload/uploadfiles/files/SmartCityGuidelines(1).pdf.
13
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx
[57] NASA. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145017/lights-out-after-cyc
lone-fani, 2019. (Accessed May 2019).
[58] A. Kirby, V. Gebski, A.C. Keech, Determining the sample size in a clinical trial,
Med. J. Aust. 177 (5) (2002) 256–257.
[59] T. Welle, J. Birkmann, The World Risk Index–An approach to assess risk and
vulnerability on a global scale, J. Extreme Events 2 (2015) 1550003.
[60] I.A. Rana, J.K. Routray, Actual vis-à-vis perceived risk of flood prone urban
communities in Pakistan, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 19 (2016) 366–378.
[61] S. Laska, B.H. Morrow, Social vulnerabilities and hurricane Katrina: an unnatural
disaster in new Orleans, Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 40 (4) (2006) 16–26.
[62] A. Curtis, J.W. Mills, M. Leitner, Katrina and vulnerability: the geography of stress,
J. Health Care Poor Underserved 18 (2) (2007) 315–330.
[63] A. de Sherbinin, G. Bardy, Social Vulnerability to Floods in Two Coastal Megacities:
New York City and Mumbai, Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2015,
pp. 131–165.
[64] M. Haraguchi, S. Kim, Critical Infrastructure Interdependence in New York City
during Hurricane Sandy, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built
Environment, 2016.
[65] World Bank, Not if, but when: Adapting to Natural Hazards in the Pacific Island
Region, A Policy Note, the World Bank, East Asia and the Pacific Region, Pacific
Islands Country Management Unit, Washington, D.C., 2006.
[66] A.D. Magee, D.C. Verdon-Kidd, A.S. Kiem, S.A. Royle, Tropical cyclone
perceptions, impacts and adaptation in the Southwest Pacific: an urban perspective
from Fiji, Vanuatu and Tonga, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 16 (5) (2016)
1091–1105.
[67] European Commission, Horizon 2020: smart cites & communities. https://ec.euro
pa.eu/inea/en/horizon-2020/smart-cities-communities, 2020.
[68] Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, District Census
HandBook -Odisha, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi,
2011. http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/dchb/Odisha.html.
[69] M. Parry, M.L. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. Van der Linden, C. Hanson (Eds.),
Climate Change 2007-impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II
Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
[70] Neha Kawyitri, Ankit Shekhar, Household survey dataset for vulnerability and
capacity assessment of Bhubaneswar to Fani cyclone impact, Mendeley Data 2
(2020), https://doi.org/10.17632/szcnv256dg.1. https://doi.org/10.17632/szc
nv256dg.2.