Natural Hazards

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-025-07108-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Evidencing sources of flood disaster policy improvement

leveraging flood risk attributes in India

Jagriti Jain1 · Francisco Muñoz‑Arriola2,3 · Deepak Khare1

Received: 21 August 2024 / Accepted: 2 January 2025

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2025

Abstract
Climate change has contributed to shifting extreme events’ frequency, intensity, spatial
extent, duration, and timing, affecting communities and regions worldwide. Yet, disaster
governance grapples with addressing the effects of emerging and unexpected spatiotempo-
ral patterns of hydroclimatic variability on the built and natural systems. This study aims
to create a workflow to identify sources of flood disaster governance improvement using
flood risk attributes for three major flood events at state and district levels in India. The
flood risk-based framework quantifies vulnerability, exposure, and hazard to evidence the
potential critical drivers of flood disaster improvement in the affected areas. Three major
flooding events occurred between 2005 and 2020 in India’s Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, and
Assam states are characterized by their hazard, vulnerability, and exposure risk attributes.
A comprehensive compilation of precipitation anomalies, augmented by media data and
hazard mapping flow accumulation (F), rainfall intensity (I), geology (G), land use (U),
slope (S), elevation (E) and distance from the drainage network (D) and global sensitiv-
ity analysis (FIGUSED-GSA), presiding over the estimation of flood exposure (using run-
off Peak-over-threshold return periods), socio-economic vulnerabilities (using the equal
weightage method), and risk (as a product of hazard, exposure and vulnerability). These
methods will be useful for the data scarce regions as well. The estimates of flood risk and
its components will aid in highlighting the areas of possible actions needed to create more
effective flood governance frameworks at both the state and district level.

Keywords Hazard · Exposure · Vulnerability · Climate change

* Deepak Khare
[email protected]
1
Water Resources Development and Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India
2
School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
3
Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE,
USA

Vol.:(0123456789)
 Natural Hazards

1 Introduction

According to the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, effective
flood risk management is closely linked to sustainable development goals: Sustainable
Cities and Communities, Climate Action, Life on Land, and Partnerships for Goals
(https://​sdgs.​un.​org/​goals). The significance of flood risk management for sustainable
development is tightened to actions toward climate change mitigation and adaptation
and the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme hydrometeorological and climatic
events (EHCEs). As per the Sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
report, human and ecological systems flood risks are connected to the rising frequency
and magnitude of flood hazards, exposure (i.e., topography or infrastructure in the area),
and vulnerability (i.e., design and maintenance of infrastructure, the existence of early
warning systems) of the built and natural environments (Pörtner et al. 2019). Asia and
Africa are hotspots due to projected flood impacts attributed to climate and socio-eco-
nomic changes (Merz et al. 2019). In India, the frequency and intensity of floods have
increased by almost 200% since 2005 (Mohanty and Wadhawan 2021). Further, world-
wide EHCEs continuously challenge existing disaster governance and engineering para-
digms, making it even harder to raise preparedness and mitigate risks, compromising
infrastructure resilience and security (Lal et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2021; Stuart et al.
2024).
Therefore, there is a dire need to identify the drivers of flood risk to create a governance
framework that leads to more resilient and secure infrastructure, ecosystems, and societies.
In this study, we estimated flood risk attributes based on hazard, vulnerability, and expo-
sure in three regions of India affected by flooding events between 2005 and 2020. The risk
attributes indicate the relevant areas and potential extent needed for more effective policy
adaptation, offering hope for a more secure future. These events have been reported to have
caused the maximum damage to property, land, and human lives and are reported in social
media and news. Mall et al. (2019) highlighted the disconnect between the adaptability of
the communities and flood risk management policy and planning, partly due to policymak-
ers favoring a centralized approach rather than actions focusing directly on affected areas.
This underscores the urgency for better governance, where decentralized connections
between institutions can re-establish a dispersed network of actors and institutions that
already exists at local scales (Tortajada 2010). This shift in approach is critical for improv-
ing flood risk management. On the other hand, Dordi et al. (2022) highlighted that flood
risk governance places greater emphasis on policies and actors predicting and measuring
risk. Previous studies encompassed quantitative approaches to evaluate risk use of multi-
criteria evaluations (Meyer et al. 2008), systems simulations (Amendola 2000), probabil-
ity-based analyses (Jalayer et al. 2014), and ensemble technology. However, as climate
changes, socioecological interactions become more conspicuous, challenging the meth-
ods above due to the lack of integration of the responses from the public and the different
geographies, which are crucial to assess risk due to their ability to capture properties of
complex socioecological systems (Linkov and Trump 2019; Hegger et al. 2016; Jain et al.
2021; Jozaei et al. 2022). Thus, indicator-based methods are useful for integrated flood
risk and vulnerability assessments (Nasiri et al. 2016). The flood risk mapping approaches
based on indicators and multi-criteria methods were used and tested in different study areas
across the world (Pathak et al. 2020; Tang et al. 2021; Quesada-Román 2022; Wing et al.
2022; Wang et al. 2018). Vojtek (2023) has considered mapping flood risk at the adminis-
trative or municipal level crucial for better policy formulations.
Natural Hazards

Indicator-based methods can be beneficial as they can be applied at multiple spatial

scales and can determine the characteristic quality of the risk components, thereby meas-
uring the variables even in difficult conditions (Londono 2011). Müller et al. (2011) and
Kaoje et al.(2019) have pointed out that these variables are easy to represent on maps at the
micro-scale by using simple numbers to express the real conditions. This study employed
indicator-based methods for hazard and vulnerability assessments at the grid level.
Most studies have been performed on hazard or direct risk assessments, and some
frameworks consider exposure as a component of vulnerability (Turner et al. 2003). Rather
than exposure, vulnerability is the term used in the majority of research. However, it is
frequently unclear how they differ from one another. Because vulnerability and exposure
are multifaceted, any organizing framework is arbitrary, overlapping, and controversial
(Cardona et al. 2012). Therefore, this study determines the population’s vulnerability and
exposure separately.
According to Ishiwatari (2019), future research will improve flood risk strategies and
more responsive governance. For example, composite public policy indices are helpful as
they consider people’s perceptions through their involvement as an institution (Roodman
2006). The quantification of governance is a cumbersome task due to its selection of good
metrics, where the composite indicator-based approach has been adopted vastly (DFID
Capstone Team 2015). The main advantage of using the composite score is observing the
variables that cannot be directly inferred but are possible by integrating the multiple indi-
cators. As a result, by highlighting flaws and gaps within the systems, composite indicators
can assist policymakers in setting priorities, establishing and improving standards, creat-
ing policy guidelines, deciding on suitable adaptations, establishing goals, and allocating
resources along with directing future research (USAID 2014; Organization for economic
co-operation and development (OECD) 2008). This study has also used the metrics essen-
tial for governance in pre- and post-event scenarios, which are rarely discussed in flood risk
governance.
In recent years, flood risk governance has undergone a paradigm shift from the use of
structural measures like the design and construction of civil infrastructure to non-structural
measures that involve decision-makers and policymakers in the improvement of mitiga-
tion strategies, the procurement of resilience, and formulation of policies that regulate
or integrate human behavior and account for societal changes (Hurlbert & Gupta 2016;
Krieger 2013). Studies focused on riverine flood management have been prioritized over
urban flooding; however, urban and riverine flood management and governance have been
mentioned in the literature before 2020 (Dordi et al. 2022). Hegger et al. (2014) suggest
that flood risk governance information and syntheses must be more cohesive and compre-
hensive. There is a high need to develop comprehensive flood risk-governance frameworks
that prevent, respond to, and address multiple flooding events. Furthermore, the discrepan-
cies in projected future flooding events indicate that flood risk management and flood risk
governance require workflows that drive analytics for risk management to identify loca-
tion and time-relevant attributes (Kundzewicz et al. 2017). The role of government policies
in flood mitigation and hazard, as well as its governance concerns, gaps, and limitations
in policy execution, have been studied in the past (National Research Council Committee
1999; Daniel Bakibinga-Ibembe et al. 2011; Berke et al. 2014; Arathy Nair et al. 2024).
The present study assesses three flooding events in India’s Maharashtra, Uttarakhand,
and Assam states, hypothesizing that the attributes of flood risk and governance, more evi-
dent in areas prone to the occurrence of precipitation anomalies and high Standardized Pre-
cipitation Index (SPI) indices, could indicate the sources of policy improvement adoptions
and adaptations. The objective is to create a workflow that leverages flood risk elements
 Natural Hazards

(e.g., hazard, exposure, and vulnerability) to identify the areas and actions needed for flood
policy management governance in India to evidence where, when, and how flood manage-
ment and governance could be improved. Three sub-objectives indicate the steps to achieve
the workflow as follows: (1) identify and regionalize the extreme flooding events using
SPI and precipitation anomalies, conforming with the social media and newspapers, and
the distribution of hazards by using flow accumulation (F), rainfall intensity (I), geology
(G), land use (U), slope (S), elevation (E) and distance from the drainage network (D) and
global sensitivity analysis (GSA) using PAWN (FIGUSED-GSA method); (2) to evaluate
the exposure (using Peak–over-threshold for return periods), socio-economic vulnerabili-
ties (using the equal weightage) and risks at the district level; and (3) map flood govern-
ance (using composite scoring) within pre- and post-flood scenarios at the state level and
assess the current state policies and the flood risk areas. The paper is divided into five sec-
tions: Study area, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.

2 Study area

India’s boundaries limited the geographic extent of the study. India is the seventh-largest
country with the largest population in the world. It lies entirely in the northern hemisphere;
the mainland extends between latitudes 8° 4’ and 37° 6’ North, longitudes 68° 7’ and 97°
25’ East (https://​www.​india.​gov.​in/​india-​glance/​profi​le). India extends more than 2,400 km
of the permanent snow-covered Himalayan range in the North to the tropical rain forests of
western Ghats in the South. For state-level analysis, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, and Assam
are selected with different geographic and hydroclimate characteristics undergoing major
flooding events between 2005 and 2019 (Fig. 1) (Table S2 in supplementary). These states
have seen a worrying increase in floods frequency in the past years, as indicated by more
frequent positive anomalies Fig. S2, in supplementary, shows the major features of the
Indian subcontinent.

3 Data and methods

3.1 Data

3.1.1 Flood identification and risk components

The hydroclimate, demographic, and socio-economic data are retrieved to identify flood
events and characterize flood risk and its components (e.g., hazard, exposure, and vulnera-
bility). The main objective of selecting these indicators is to understand the complex nature
of humans and the drivers of flood risk. This understanding is crucial for making informed
decisions and effectively managing risk (Ghosh et al. 2024). It is important to note that
while flood risk is primarily influenced by the hydroclimatic and geographical features for
the hazard estimation, socio-economic differences among the different sections of the com-
munity play a significant role in vulnerability and exposure estimation. These differences
often lead to severe flooding events with disastrous consequences (Bates 2023; Gandini
et al. 2020).
Hazards use monthly rainfall, elevation, slope, and distance from streams for the major
rivers (at 10, 20, 50, and 100 km), and flow accumulation is derived from the DEM. Land
Natural Hazards

Fig. 1  Location of the three selected states: Maharashtra, Uttarakhand and Assam are shown along with
their elevation

use/Land Cover (2011–2012) is downloaded from the NRSC Bhuvan website at the 250 m
spatial resolution (https://​bhuvan.​nrsc.​gov.​in/). The geology map was downloaded from
the United States Geological Survey website (https://​certm​apper.​cr.​usgs.​gov). The spa-
tially distributed daily rainfall data at 0.25 ◦ resolution used the Indian Meteorological
Department (IMD) dataset from 1930 to 2019. All data were resampled and reclassified
to 0.25 × 0.25-degree resolution using the nearest neighbor and cubic convolution interpo-
lation. Without an appreciable difference, our nearest neighbor’s advantage was selected
because the reduced processing time (Parsania and Virparia 2016). Metrics for exposure
estimates are the population inhabiting in 2005, 2010, and 2015 (at 30 arc-sec) with the
100-year flood return period. The 100-year return period is calculated based on the flooded
areas by using the GLDAS data and extracting the daily runoff at 0.25 × 0.25 grid size
(https://​ldas.​gsfc.​nasa.​gov/​gldas/​gldas-​get-​data). The socio-economic vulnerability metric
is calculated based on the number of households, the income, and the literacy rate available
at the district level for 2001 since the data was not available for the other periods (https://​
sedac.​ciesin.​colum​bia.​edu/). Table 1 shows the tabular representation of the datasets used.

3.1.2 Printed and social media

The reporting of major flooding events for the last two decades (2001–2019) from media
sources such as newspapers and social media sites (The Economic Times; The Hindu;
The Scroll) is done to classify the several types of flooding event. The sources have been
added to the supplementary material. Previous studies have stated that social media iden-
tify the hotspots of flooding events and raise the issue of preparedness and risk reduction.
Table 1  List of datasets used
S. no. Data type Temporal Time range Spatial resolution (deg) Resampled spatial Source
resolution resolution (deg)

Hazard
1 Rainfall Daily 1930–2019 0.25 × 0.25 0.009 × 0.009 https://​www.​imdpu​ne.​gov.​in/
2 Digital elevation model – – 0.0008 × 0.0008 0.009 × 0.009 https://​bigda​ta.​cgiar.​org/​srtm-​90m-​digit​al-​
eleva​tion-​datab​ase/
3 Land use/Land Cover – 2011 0.0022 × 0.0022 0.009 × 0.009 https://​bhuvan.​nrsc.​gov.​in/
4 Geology – 2000 - 0.009 × 0.009 https://​certm​apper.​cr.​usgs.​gov
Exposure
5 Runoff Daily 1930–2019 0.25 × 0.25 0.009 × 0.009 https://​ldas.​gsfc.​nasa.​gov/​gldas/​gldas-​get-​data
6 Population Yearly 2000–2020 0.009 × 0.009 No change https://​www.​world​pop.​org/
Vulnerability
7 Number of households – 2001 0.009 × 0.009 No change https://​sedac.​ciesin.​colum​bia.​edu/
8 Income – 2001 0.009 × 0.009 No change https://​sedac.​ciesin.​colum​bia.​edu/
9 Literacy rate – 2001 0.009 × 0.009 No change https://​sedac.​ciesin.​colum​bia.​edu/
Natural Hazards
Natural Hazards

Printed and social media analyses can help know the ground truth through photos and text
(Cervone et al. 2016).

3.1.3 Governance

Institutional, financial, prevention, preparedness, mitigation, inspection, rehabilitation, and

maintenance arrangements data for governance can vary for different regions. Indicators
for the arrangements are derived from the State Disaster Management Authority report
(https://​www.​asdma.​gov.​in/; Management 2013) for pre-and post-event scenarios and from
the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) report published in 2008 and 2010
(NDMA 2008, 2010), the fact-finding committee’s report after the Mumbai flood in 2005
(Deluge et al. 2006), the National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM) report on the
event in Uttarakhand in 2013 (Management 2013), and the Flood situation report in Assam
2016 by the Inter-State Agency Group (Situation Report 2016).

3.2 Methodology

Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual framework summarizing the methodological steps, with
three grand components: flood area and event selection, risk estimation, and governance
synthesis. The workflow includes estimating flood risk and its components integrated by
a multicriteria analysis to identify the weights of the individual parameters and recognize
their importance for hazard estimation. This study employs a flood risk framework that
foresees using and identifying hotspots and geospatial attributes to improve flood risk man-
agement. This section describes each of the steps as follows.

3.2.1 Flood identification

The precipitation anomalies and SPI detect and identify the pattern of above-normal events
(Guerreiro et al. 2008). The use of precipitation anomaly flood detection and social media
is explored in limited studies. Mishra et al. (2022) have created a framework for summer
monsoon detection to account for extreme events. Baranowski et al. (2020) have used
social media to attribute precipitation anomalies to increase the predictability of flood risk.
However, this study uses precipitation anomaly and SPI for extreme event detection and
validation using social media data and newspaper reports, which were not explored earlier.
Spatiotemporal diagnostics of flood use monthly precipitation anomalies and the standard-
ized precipitation index (SPI) between 1930 and 2019 using R software. SPI algorithms
analyze the precipitation data to estimate two key coefficients that govern the optimal
transformation of observed precipitation data into transformed Gaussian (normal) equiva-
lents. The Gaussian equivalents are used to compute the dimensionless SPI value, defined
as the standardized anomaly of the precipitation:
(P − P∗ )
SPI = (1)
𝜎P

where P is the precipitation [mm/day], P* is the mean precipitation [mm/day], and σp is the
standard deviation of precipitation.
 Natural Hazards

Fig. 2  Methodological steps for the development of flood risk index and governance assessment
Natural Hazards

3.2.2 Calculation of the hazards and score allocation

We performed the estimation of flood hazards in data-scarce regions where it is neces-

sary to analyze the flood risk areas and the governance in place during extreme events.
We used Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to create, assess, and rank alterna-
tive courses of action. MCDA is a versatile tool that provides a wide range of methodol-
ogies that structure issues with multiple and heterogeneous impacts (Ferretti and Mon-
tibeller 2019). The integration of spatial analysis (i.e., geographic information systems)
and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) complement one another by enhancing
the effectiveness of the assessment process. Previous studies have shown that superim-
posing GIS layers to estimate flood-hazardous areas is effective (Kourgialas and Karat-
zas 2011). Schumann et al. (2000) also used a GIS-based approach for rainfall-runoff
modeling.
In contrast, Liu and Dawei (2009) enhanced their rainfall-runoff model by includ-
ing various parameters such as slope, land use, and soil type. This approach shows that
including such parameters can deepen the understanding of hydrological processes in
river basins and assist in flood risk management. Also, in this study, we have used the
adaptable flow accumulation (F), rainfall intensity (I), geology (G), land use (U), slope
(S), elevation (E), and distance from the drainage network (D) (FIGUSED) methodol-
ogy for hazard estimation, which is based on the natural breaks’ classification of the
parameters. The FIGUSED method determines the hazard scores, first used by Kazakis
et al. (2015). Also, the scoring for identifying the hazard components is based on the
factor of influence on the flood geophysical vulnerability (Kazakis et al. 2015). The pro-
posed methodology suggests a pairwise comparison using a 7 × 7 matrix, where diago-
nal elements equal 1. The acquired values are processed to calculate the relative sig-
nificance of each criterion and the corresponding weighting factor (w). Following the
Calculation of the weights, the hazard can be calculated using Eq. (2).
N
∑
Ri *wi = F*wF + I*wI + G*wG + U*wU + S*ws + E*wE + D∗ wD (2)
i=1

where, ­Ri is the rating of the parameter in each point; w

­ i the weight of each parameter; N is
the number of the criteria The weight for each parameter is given by the Analytical Hierar-
chal Process (AHP) proposed by (Saaty 1987). However, weighting done by AHP is widely
used in many applications (Valle Junior et al. 2014; Oikonomidis et al. 2015) and is recom-
mended to be used for regional studies (Ayalew and Yamagishi 2005).
The consistency check is performed by the creation of the eigenvector matrix of the
AHP. The required level of consistency is evaluated using the following index:
CR = CI∕RI (3)
CR is the consistency ratio; CI is the consistency index; RI is the random index.
The theory suggests that the consistency ratio (CR) must be less than 0.1. Taherdoost
(2017) has shown that CR is used for validation of AHP. Each indicator was given a
rank based on the percentage of the influence, which is determined by the characteristic
of the type of flooding.
Global sensitivity analysis (GSA) aims at quantifying the contribution of individual
variables to a quantity of interest. The weights after performing AHP are analyzed for
GSA. Here GSA is performed by using PAWN (variance-based) method. It is based on
 Natural Hazards

the cumulative density-based function. This is taken from Pianosi and Wagener (2018).
The final weights are calculated after the consideration of the compensation applied.
PAWN sensitivity index for the i-th parameter is given by:
| ( )|
Pi = stat max |Sy (y) − S y|xi y|xi |
| | (4)

where, ­Sy(y) and ­Sy|xi(y|xi) are the unconditional and conditional CDFs of the output y, and
stat is the statistic (mean, median or maximum) as defined by the user. Technical details
and applications coupling multiple analytics can be found in Pianosi and Wagener (2018),
Amaranto et al. (2020), and Sarzaeim and Muñoz-Arriola (2024). Kazakis et al. (2015)
first used the FIGUSED method with the single parameter sensitivity analysis to derive the
effective weights. In contrast, this study is the first time PAWN has used a variance-based
global sensitivity analysis, making the indices more robust.

3.2.3 Calculation of the vulnerability indicator

For the socio-economic vulnerability scores, each indicator is given an equal weightage
(EW) and are calculated as follows (Chang et al. 2021):
V1 + V2 + V3
SEVi = (5)
3
SEVi is the socio-economic vulnerability for the state i. V
­ 1 is Number of households,
­V2 is Income, V­ 3 is Literacy Rate. It is assumed that the contribution of each indicator
would be the same, and each would contribute equally. By avoiding any disagreement over
the allocation of differential weights based on regional features, this method eliminates
any further variability and makes it simple to compare the study locations (Cutter et al.
2003; Turvey 2007). Studies have employed statistical analyses using Principal Compo-
nent Analysis (PCA) (Cutter et al. 2003), weighted mean as the combined index (Vincent
2004), geometric mean (Brenkert and Malone 2005), and arithmetic mean (Turvey 2007)
for aggregation. Equal Weightage (EW) has improved the correlation with the actual data
compared to other methods, such as PCA and composite scoring. The latter suggests using
EW for vulnerability assessments and simplifying the vulnerability estimation process
(Malakar and Mishra 2017; Lee et al. 2021).

3.2.4 Exposure estimation and normalization of indicators and risk

Exposure estimations are based on the probability of 2-, 5-, 10-, 20-, 50- and 100-year
runoff return periods and calculated using the Peak-over threshold (POT) method in R
software’s POT package. POT has proven to have fewer uncertainties when analyzing
extreme values (Saeed Far and Abd Wahab 2016). The indicator values were then standard-
ized between 0 and 1 using the minimum–maximum rescaling formula below(Iyengar and
Sudarshan 1982):
xi − xi,min
Vi =
xi,max − xi,min (6)
̇

where ­Vi is normalized value of indicator X

­ i, ­Xi, min, and X
­ i,max represents the minimum
and maximum values of a specific indicator i, respectively.
Social.
Natural Hazards

Risk is the product of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability of a system (Saulnier et al.
2018).
Risk = Hazard ∗ Exposure ∗ Vulnerability (7)

3.2.5 Governance scoring

The selection of indicators depends on the background context and the subjectivity estab-
lished by the criteria. According to some studies, such as those by (Hahn et al. 2009; Cutter
et al. 2003), the Delphi technique was used to involve expert opinion and reduce the data
from the literature review. In general, the indicators are also chosen based on the acces-
sibility and availability of the data. While in this study, the indicator-based quantification
is derived from the sub-criteria parameters from Chakrabarti (2017) and Pinheiro et al.
(2021), which have denoted “Yes” with 1 and “No” with a 0. The rationale for selecting the
indicators is to concisely communicate information on various factors (Zhou et al. 2010;
Balica et al. 2012; Hahn et al. 2009). Composite indices are effective and communicative
tools because they provide non-technical audiences with clear and succinct outcomes, like
scores or rankings (Baptista 2014). The scores are based on the institutional, financial,
prevention, preparedness, mitigation, inspection, rehabilitation, and maintenance arrange-
ments derived from the NDMA reports in the pre and post-event scenarios.
The Institutional arrangements define the national, state, and district institutional coor-
dinating systems for effective disaster management (DM). Financial agreements empha-
sizing disaster relief funding have been crucial to federal fiscal relations. Prevention,
preparedness, and mitigation are contained in the special projects for disasters analysis
involving networks of communication systems, public distribution systems, storage facili-
ties, transportation facilities, medical facilities, emergency reserves (essential resources,
food, medicines, water, among others.), shelter capacity, NGOs presence and volunteers,
plan availability, and teams that undertake various functions. Inspection, rehabilitation, and
maintenance include quick response strategies with the assessment of damages, dissemina-
tion of the warning, and the presence of efficient rehabilitation centers for the victims. All
these components are considered for policy mapping. This process is performed for each
selected state. A final score of 0 indicates whether the respective component does not exist,
0.5 for existing but limited, and 1 if it exists in the region. A composite score is formed by
performing the mean at the pre and post-event scores. The scoring was given to give the
idea of whether the four policies were present. However, these can be converted into the
Yes, Maybe, or No format instead of the 0, 0.5, and 1, which can provide a qualitative rep-
resentation. The various sub-parameters considered to achieve these values are mentioned
in the results section.

4 Results

This study’s thesis states that developing a workflow that integrates flood risk and its com-
ponents (vulnerability, hazard, and exposure) can guide the improvement of flood disaster
governance in India. Spatially distributed estimates of risk and risk components in three
states affected by major flooding events between 2005 and 2019 suggest the sources of risk
that eventually could inform flood management governance. The results are presented in
three sections: Flood event detection and characterization; Flood Hazard- GSA estimation
 Natural Hazards

at the state level; Exposure and Vulnerabilities and Risk and Flood Governance at the State
level.

4.1 Flood event detection and characterization

The temporal variability and spatial distribution of hydroclimate flood indicators in India
are explored. The monthly precipitation anomalies are plotted for events between 2001 and
2019 (recent years) with the base period of 1930–2019 (Fig. 3a), highlighting seven major
flooding events registered since 2005, corroborating with the printed and social media data.
From these, three major flood events in Maharashtra in July 2005 (or Event 1), Uttara-
khand in June 2013 (or Event 2), and Assam in July 2016 (or Event 3) have been selected,

Fig. 3  a Monthly Precipitation Anomaly (%) of major flooding events between 2001 and 2019 based on the
1930–2019 IMD data (https://​dsp.​imdpu​ne.​gov.​in/) Standardized precipitation index (SPI) for 3 months for
the b Event 1 (Maharashtra flood in 2005), c Event 2 (Uttarakhand flood in 2013) and d Event 3 (Assam
Flood in 2016), e Indicates the damage that has occurred during the events
Natural Hazards

covering different geographical locations, exposure time experienced, and representing

distinct types of floods. The details on the losses reported in these states can be found in
Fig. 3e. A positive anomaly of precipitation of 11%, 36%, and 11% for Events 1, 2, and
3, respectively, has been found. Mishra et al. (2022) reported such anomaly values and
demonstrated that anomalies above 10% represent a surplus monsoon season for the Indian
subcontinent. Complementarily, the positive values of the SPI also indicate water excess.
Each month, the SPI_3 (SPI at three months) is calculated. Except for Event 3 (fluvial
flooding), events 1 and 2 provided a good indication of pluvial flooding, as indicated by
the 6–9% range (Fig. 3b–d). News and media reports also corroborate these findings. It was
identified a water height of 457 mm, citing a "10/5/2015 12:09: Flood water is still over 18
inches deep on Wildlife Road near Industrial Road". Only some media reports are cited,
which can provide an account of the flooding events. Twitter started on 21st March 2006,
so there are no accounts of Event 1 at the corresponding time, but there is evidence in the
newspaper and editorial which shows the event’s occurrence. For the Event 2, reports from
India Today magazine and news channels like Aaj Tak can be found. However, the involve-
ment of the residents or the tourists cannot be seen when the advanced search was done
from 1st January 2013 to 31st December 2013. In 2016, Twitter and social media increased
in reach from 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2016, as the use of social media started
to increase with the population as the socio-economic conditions improved.
Consequently, government helplines and reports by the government and news channels
were shared during the time of Event 3. The news reports confirmed these extreme events
when the damages induced were high. Baranowski et al. (2020) conducted a similar study
in the region of Sumatra, Africa, where the newspaper reports and social media revealed
the large-scale flooding events based on precipitation anomalies. These findings underscore
the need for further research in this area of hydroclimate flood indicators.
The spatial distribution of precipitation shows that the Western Ghats, Central India,
with portions of the north and the northeast areas, is influenced by extreme rainfall with
values of 1700–3600 mm (Figure in Supplementary Material). The news reports were
the sources of confirmation for the selection of flooding cases and the characterization of
damages (Fig. 3e). Other events like the Kerala 2018 and 2019 floods were not identified
by Fig. 3a due to their fluvial or convective precipitation origins and timing, respectively
(Geetha Raveendran Nair et al. 2023; Vijaykumar et al. 2021).

4.2 Flood hazard‑ GSA estimation at state level

The main idea of generating flood hazard maps is to characterize coastal, fluvial, and plu-
vial flooding in three locations that faced damage during the 2005, 2013, and 2016 flood
events (Fig. 4). Studies suggest that hazards can be estimated based on rainfall (Allafta and
Opp 2021), flow accumulation (Kazakis et al. 2015; Adlyansah et al. 2019), slope, eleva-
tion and distance to the streams (Zhang et al. 2021). The details on the specific weights of
each parameter included in the estimation of hazards are provided in the supplementary
material Table S3.

a. Maharashtra Flood 2005 (Event 1)

  Ranger and Lopez (2011) have emphasized the occurrence of sea level rise leading
to coastal flooding, which impacted 20% of the region and caused flood waters to reach
depths of 0.5–1.5 m in low-lying areas. The rainfall was around 1000 mm in just 24 h,
which shows that both pluvial and coastal flooding have occurred in the Thane and
 Natural Hazards

Fig. 4  Mapping of hazard for a Event 1, b Event 2 and c Event 3. Here are the snapshots of the respective
state, detailed maps are in supplementary. The values generated are dimensionless

Greater Mumbai regions (see figure in the supplementary materials). The hazard in
these areas lies within the 0.51–0.6 range.
b. Uttarakhand Flood 2013 (Event 2)
  During this period, both pluvial and fluvial flooding took place, which is supported
by other studies (Martha et al. 2015; Chevuturi and Dimri 2016; Nandargi et al. 2016;
Dash and Punia 2019). The most affected regions are found to be in the upper reaches
of the states, with values ranging from 0.4 to 0.6, including the districts of Chamoli,
Rudraprayag, and Tehri Garhwal (see figure in Supplementary).
c. Assam Flood 2016 (Event 3)
  The hazard values are generated, showing that a significant portion of the states for
Event 1 lies in more than 0.5–0.6, Event 2 lies in 0.2–0.6, and Event 3 lies in 0.3–0.5
(Fig. 4). Ghosh et al. (2024) also reported that flooding was primarily attributed to
fluvial drivers.
Natural Hazards

After the FIGUSED, the PAWN sensitivity analysis was performed, which showed
that geology (G), flow accumulation (F), and precipitation (I) ranked as the top three
sensitive parameters. Details on other parameters can be found in supplementary mate-
rial. The final hazard maps generated are used to calculate risk involving the compensa-
tion of the other parameters and prevent the rank reversal issue. However, most stud-
ies that use flood hazard and flood risk synonymously grapple with acknowledging the
vulnerability and exposure. The hazards do not clearly state why only specific grid cells
face damage from floods; even the other basins are prone to flood. Therefore, to charac-
terize the critical areas affected by an event, the socio-economic vulnerability and expo-
sure assessment is required, performed for the respective states, and the flood policies
and laws are developed based on administrative boundaries.

4.3 Exposure and vulnerabilities

Valued social agents in floodplains, such as population and infrastructure, are said to be
exposed to flooding (Moel and Aerts 2011; Koks et al. 2015). Determining the magni-
tude of flood hazards and integrating population and infrastructure assets are the first
two steps in flood vulnerability analysis (Tate et al. 2021). Higher exposure may make
socially vulnerable people susceptible to floods (Cutter et al. 2014). This condition
involves the socio-economic vulnerability into the spatiotemporal attributions of risk
(i.e., the hazard’s geospatial distribution and temporal changes). Figure 5a illustrates
the spatial distribution of the return levels of surface runoff obtained from the GLDAS
for the selected events. The 100-year return levels for Event 3 are higher in the 177
to 320 mm/day range, whereas for Events 1 and 2, the return levels lie between 0 to
122 mm/day. Thus, the return levels express the exposure to fluvial and pluvial flood
scenarios. GLDAS datasets have also been applied to assess hydroclimate changes and
variations in the water cycle, like the diagnosis of extreme events such as droughts and
pluvial flooding (Fang et al. 2009). Here, this dataset provides a good metric for the
return level analysis.
The return periods are also analyzed to calculate exposure for the three flooding
events. Figure 5b shows the exposed population at the grid scale and overlaps with
the 100-year return period layer, confirming the expected that the major cities within
the states are heavily impacted. Here, the forcing data for the GLDAS comes from the
ECMWF rainfall data, and the model used for the derivation of runoff performs well
with IMD (Singhal et al. 2023). The ratio between storm runoff and precipitation used
the ECMWF reanalysis data. For Event 1, the ratio fluctuated from 5.65% to 8.82%; for
Event 2, it was from 0.53 to 0.98%; and for Event 3, it was from 5.36% to 8.38%. What
is evident is that the 2005 and 2016 flood events in Mumbai and Asam have pluvial-
fluvial and pluvial-fluvial-coastal contributions, respectively. It also shows that even
minimal rainfall can severely damage these vulnerable areas. Therefore, it becomes
essential to know the contribution of vulnerabilities and whether these events’ cascad-
ing and compounding characteristics triggered the ratios. These results open up venues
for future studies to delve deeper into the effects of EHCEs on socioenvironmental sys-
tems and policy formulation. On the other hand, Fig. 5c shows the spatial distribution
of socio-economic vulnerability for the events, where the highest vulnerability values
occur near the coast in Maharashtra or Mumbai, Uttarakhand’s urban areas, and near the
river streams in Assam.
 Natural Hazards

(a)

Uttarakhand
Assam

Maharashtra 100-YEAR RETURN LEVELS

OF THE RUNOFF (mm/day)

(b)

Fig. 5  a Spatial distribution of 100-year return levels of the runoff (mm/day) from the GLDAS daily dataset
from 1950 to 2020, b exposure in terms of population during the flood event 1, 2 and 3, and (c) socio-eco-
nomic vulnerability mapping. The values are normalized and are dimensionless

4.4 Risk at the state level

It has been found that flood risk varies regionally, and there is a clear spatial depend-
ence on exposure and vulnerabilities. Figure 6 illustrates the flood risk areas at the dis-
trict level by performing zonal statistics on the 0.009-degree resolution risk values. On
Natural Hazards

Fig. 5  (continued)

the other hand, the estimated governance scores of the pre-and post-event scenarios for
events 1, 2, and 3 indicate that all three states need to work on the prevention, prepared-
ness ­(CSp), and maintenance policies (­ CSm), and the finances (­ CSf) should be improved
(Tables 2 and 3). Also, Table 3 shows the composite scoring given to the states for dis-
aster management. Integrating these scores and the risk index helps identify the regions
that require the utmost attention.

a. Maharashtra Flood 2005 (Event 1)

  A high hazard, exposure, and vulnerability (due to more population clustering in a
few districts) resulted in the risk during this event. Also, due to human interference,
most surface drainage has been fully modified, and it is evident that the districts need
additional natural drainage (Stecko and Barber 2007). Thane and Mumbai have been
identified as very high-risk districts, and Pune, Kolhapur, Sangli, Aurangabad, Akola,
Chandrapur, and Nanded are high-risk districts (see Supplementary). Additionally, a
missing response force by the government led to absent assistance in rehabilitation
services (Stecko and Barber 2007). These factors fostered more responsive community
actions to mitigate the government’s underestimation of the damages, which was pri-
marly due to the lack of comprehensive risk assessment and data collection, across the
disaster-risk continuum (from preparedness to response to recovery).
b. Uttarakhand Flood 2013 (Event 2)
  The plain districts of Uttarakhand, Haridwar, and Udham Singh Nagar have been
identified as very high-risk districts, and Dehradun as high-risk districts. The population
exposed to floods lies in the low vulnerability zone, whereas the hazard was generated
 Natural Hazards

Fig. 6  Risk map at district level for a event 1, b event 2 and c event 3. The normalized values of risk are
divided into equal intervals and are assigned as the very low to very high range. Very Low (0–0.2), Low
(0.2–0.4), Medium (0.4–0.6), High (0.6–0.8), Very High (0.8–1)

in the upper region of the state. This condition is due to combined pluvial and fluvial
flooding, which damaged the urban infrastructure (the water supply system) (see Sup-
plementary).
c. Assam Flood 2016 (Event 3)
  Bongaigaon has been identified as a very high-risk district, and Nagaon and Cachar
are also high-risk districts. Population exposed and highly vulnerable areas, mainly
living in urban areas, fall in the medium-risk category. In contrast, very high-risk and
high-risk areas are in peri-urban or rural areas. Rehabilitation facilities existed pre-event
but were missed post-event.

For both Events 2 and 3, the government lacks in preparedness, prevention, mitigation,
rehabilitation, and finances in the pre-event scenario, but due to the special status to the
Himalayan and North-eastern states (such as Assam) and most of the financial dependence
on the central government is 90%, it was able to generate funds post-event (https://​prsin​dia.​
Table 2  Detailed scoring for the governance parameters
Institutional arrangements Maharashtra Uttarakhand Assam
Natural Hazards

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Existence of a coordinating agency No = 0 Yes = 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Exclusive technical team for coordination No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Institutional mechanisms for reconstruction No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Municipal council for risk and disaster management No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Legislative analysis/participation No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
0*5 = 0 (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1)/5 = 5
Financial arrangements
State and disaster risk mitigation fund and budgetary reserve No No No Yes No No
Financing the reconstruction projects No Yes No Yes No No
0 + 0/2 = 0 (1 + 0)/2 = 0.5
Prevention, preparedness, and mitigation
End-to-end early warning systems and communication system No No No Yes No Yes
Emergency medical preparedness No Yes No Yes No Yes
Contingency plans, SOPs, manuals, emergency operation centers No Yes No Yes No Yes
Community-based disaster preparedness and awareness generation No No No Yes No Yes
Inspection, rehabilitation and maintenance
Minimum standard of relief or ex-gratia relief along with management No Yes No Yes Yes No
of relief camps
Relief logistics No Yes No Yes Yes No
Reconstruction of houses or infrastructure No Yes No Yes Yes No
Food and essential supplies and provision of drinking water No Yes No Yes Yes No

The Data is prepared from the state disaster management reports and is based on the understanding of authors. * These are based on the SDMA reports from 2005, 2013 and
2016 for Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, and Assam respectively
 Natural Hazards

Table 3  Composite scoring (CS) for the governance assessment at the state level
Event location Institutional CSi Financial CSf Prevention, CSp Inspection, CSm
Arrange- Arrange- Prepared- Rehabilita-
ments ments ness, and tion and
Mitigation Maintenance
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

1. Maharashtra 0 1 0.5 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 1 0.5

2. Uttarakhand 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0.5 0 1 0.5
3. Assam 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 0 0.5

If the respective policy is existing then it is given 1 score, if not present is allotted 0 score and 0.5 denotes
partially existing. * The scores are individual to each state and are dependent on the time and availability of
data. The detailed scoring is attached in the supplementary file

org/​policy/​report-​summa​ries/​report-​15th-​finan​ce-​commi​ssion). There is a need for multi-

level coordination and regulatory practices between the institutions (Dash and Punia 2019).
These assessments can help identify potential areas for improvement in disaster govern-
ance and the actual risk causes.

5 Discussion

This study focuses on three major flooding events in India. The methodological approach
presented in this paper can be implemented in other geographic locations where risk
assessments can contribute to filling the gap between flood occurrence and flood govern-
ance. The central thesis of this study is that the potential flooding risks and the existing
flood governance can provide evidence of how components of risk could guide future flood
management and responses. To support this, we created a composite index for governance
assessment, supported by social media information, characterized precipitation anomalies,
SPI, and hazard for flood, and determined exposure, hazard, and vulnerabilities.
In this study, the status of the policies concerning the pre- and post-event scenarios dur-
ing the flood period is assessed at the state level. It has been found that (a) the government
is lacking in the pre-and post-event strategies and arrangements and are inconsistent with
the risk due to a flooding event; (b) the precipitation anomalies, SPI, social media, and the
flood hazard maps can characterize the floods (pluvial, fluvial or coastal or compounded)
and can also validate the locations of flooding (as seen in Figs. 4,5,6); (c) the access to
social media determine the socio-economic and educational status of the population which
the socio-economic vulnerabilities can see; (d) spatiotemporal variability of the exposure
and socio-economic vulnerabilities in the floods can be captured (Fig. 6).
This paper identifies the attributions for the different risk and policy components. The
FIGUSED-GSA method determines the hazards for characterizing different types of flood-
ing (as one of the risk components). This characterization of properties of river, coastal, or
rainfall flooding risks uses parameters that account for sea level rise, cyclone intensity and
landfall locations, precipitation patterns, and river discharge that have been used earlier
(Bates et al. 2021). Over large geographic areas, they can identify and map flood hazards
(Schneeberger and Steinberger 2018). We have used statistics to represent better the spatial
Natural Hazards

heterogeneity of fluvial floods, where runoff becomes a major factor in the spatial charac-
terization of floods.
While the process described in this paper is data-intensive, it results in the derivation
of flood hazard, exposure, and vulnerability maps. These maps, when overlaid with the
population and the return periods of the runoff, can determine the actual exposure, which
coincides with the flooded areas of the event. The POT method, efficient for estimating
frequent flood quantiles, provides a more extensive dataset due to its data extraction nature
for regionalizing every frequent flood (Pan et al. 2022). Cardona et al. (2012) stress that
exposure, particularly to various social groups, is a highly dynamic factor that varies not
only with the seasons but also throughout the day and on multiple days of the week. Dis-
asters can exacerbate pre-disaster vulnerability tendencies, as Figs. 5 and 6 show. We have
attempted to analyze the socio-economic vulnerability at the state level, covering various
administrative scales. Vulnerabilities result from historical and current cultural, social,
environmental, political, and economic contexts. Barroca et al. (2006) highlighted that pre-
vious vulnerability assessment methods needed to be more frequently completed or con-
text-specific and established at inappropriate scales. Alston and Turner (1962) emphasize
that vulnerability assessments must consider the influences on vulnerability from various
scales. This study generates state-wise vulnerability maps, which help develop better dis-
trict and state disaster vulnerability assessments.
However, applying and analyzing these interacting influences on vulnerability from
various spatial scales in real-world situations can be challenging. When identifying expo-
sure and vulnerability to severe events and climate change, spatial and functional scales are
another pertinent intersecting subject (Cardona et al. 2012). Thus, the major innovation of
this study is its application for the three different types of flooding characterization while
implementing the indicator-based risk-governance analysis. The improvement in the meth-
ods is first-hand applied in this study for the different spatial scales in India. The district-
level distribution of the risk will help design the flood risk policy frameworks by providing
regional information to the district and state administration.
In this study, all datasets are resampled to a spatial resolution of 1 km to facilitate more
straightforward overlay, comparison, and raster calculations. The finer scale of the indi-
ces is also advantageous for identifying precise locations, which can support local gov-
ernments in formulating targeted policies. Additionally, the constructed indices maps for
hazard, exposure, and vulnerability are used to generate a risk index map through zonal
statistics, which helps create district-level maps. The resultant digital resources can assist
district or state governments in developing comprehensive policies that need improvement.
These spatial representations ultimately contribute to a more holistic approach to flood risk
governance, ranging from pixel-level to district-level considerations. District-level govern-
ance still needs a clearer understanding of the precise causes of flooding events, which
has been tried to be fulfilled through this study. The areas that are at medium or minimal
risk may experience the major effects of the extremes if the policies and the infrastruc-
ture are not built for future extreme events to come due to the climatic changes and the
anthropogenic activities based on the spatial distribution of extremes and current policies
for the sustainable development. Different flood pathways have different impacts and cop-
ing capacities and can provide an entry to tailored future risk mitigation and adaptations
(Kreibich et al. 2017; Thieken et al. 2022).
It is important to note that this study has a few limitations that warrant further explora-
tion. The uncertainties associated with the datasets and the multiple indices can be exam-
ined. More parameters for socio-economic vulnerabilities can be explored, as in (Tate et al.
2021), but this is currently restricted due to a lack of data for Indian states. The data can be
 Natural Hazards

improved with hydraulic information such as river discharge, riparian status, and roughness
coefficient precipitation/runoff models (Ganji et al. 2022). The reported data by the Indian
government regarding the damages are limited to 2016, which restricts our study from ana-
lyzing the further years. However, when compared with the GFDRR 2019 policy frame-
work, India’s existing flood management policies and guidelines highlight the reforms
needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change (see Supplementary Material Table S2).

6 Conclusion

This study highlights flood disaster management by contrasting the shortcomings in the
existing policy structure and governance with flood risk and its components in India The
anomaly detection, SPI for 3 months, hazard estimation, and state-level standards used in
flood disaster management are contrasted to elucidate the areas where prevalent policies are
not functional. The anomalies (%) indicate that some peaks have not resulted in flooding
events as it depends on the policies and the physical infrastructure at the local level. The
three flooding events in this study have highlighted the need for community involvement
and their contribution during the flood, whose social behavior is critical in tackling the
situation. Therefore, there is a pressing need to explore the risk and governance attributions
in the community in detail due to past events (socio-economic) set up at different admin-
istrative scales. The Indian government has provided the National Disaster Management
Plan 2019, which contains new guidelines for achieving climate-resilient development and
ensuring citizens’ protection against the risks associated with multiple disasters. It focuses
on the state-level mitigation and recovery efforts at various stages. These strategies align
with the Sendai Framework 2015, and the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) to be
achieved by 2030 but require timely implementation of the plans. The contrast between
the policies and the risk components has helped to create information for the vulnerable
community. The information on return periods can help identify future extreme events and
their impacts on communities and infrastructure. Also, the area of high social vulnerability
needs improvement in financial preparedness, prevention, and maintenance of the govern-
ance structure. Also, the market for flood insurance can be created for vulnerable societies
and structured to help with governance. The governance distribution can be established as
the lack of coping capacity and the need to improve in tackling future extreme events. This
work provides grid-to-state-level indices to better understand the stakeholders at each level
and prepare the plans according to the requirements. This study can be expanded to other
states of India as well, as the availability of the data improves. It has been conceptualized
that the higher the risk, the lower the system’s resilience and vice versa. The present study
suggests that the transition from risk to resilience-adaptation strategies, which ensure that
a significant external shock, i.e., climate change to the environment or a virulent disease to
population health—does not exhibit lasting damage to the functionality and efficiency of a
given system, which can be further explored. This philosophical difference is complex yet
necessary in the face of the growing challenges and uncertainties of an increasingly global
and interconnected world (Jain et al. 2021, 2024; Linkov and Trump 2019). This work-
flow will further help policymakers investigate specific issues in the flood risk management
structure and identify gaps within the governance structure, improving the development of
better adaptation strategies.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​025-​07108-3.
Natural Hazards

Acknowledgements Jagriti Jain is supported by the doctoral fellowship from the Ministry of Education,
India. Elements of this research were supported by the School of Natural Resources and the Robert B.
Daugherty Global Water for Food Global Institute (DWFI) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL).
Also, we are grateful to the UNL Holland Computer Center for access to their high-computing facilities to
perform some of the analyses.

Funding No external funding was used.

Data availability All data used in this study is publicly available online.

Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.

References
Adlyansah AL, Husain RL, Pachri H (2019) Analysis of flood hazard zones using overlay method with
figused-based scoring based on geographic information systems: case study in parepare City South
Sulawesi Province. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1755-​1315/​280/1/​012003
Allafta H, Opp C (2021) GIS-based multicriteria analysis for flood prone areas mapping in the trans-bound-
ary shatt Al-Arab Basin, Iraq-Iran. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 12(1):2087–2116. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
19475​705.​2021.​19557​55
Alston RE, Turner BL (1962) New techniques in analysis of complex natural hybridization. Proc Natl Acad
Sci 48(2):130–137. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​48.2.​130
Amaranto A, Pianosi F, Solomatine D, Corzo G, Muñoz-Arriola F (2020) Sensitivity analysis of data-driven
groundwater forecasts to hydroclimatic controls in irrigated croplands. J Hydrol 587(April):124957.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhydr​ol.​2020.​124957
Amendola L (2000) Coupled quintessence. Phys Rev D Part Fields Gravit Cosmol 62(4):10. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1103/​PhysR​evD.​62.​043511
Arathy Nair GR, Adarsh S, Muñoz-Arriola F (2024) Introducing a climate, demographics, and infrastructure
multi-module workflow for projected flood risk mapping in the greater Pamba River Basin, Kerala,
India. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 112:104780. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2024.​104780
Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility
mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology 65(1–2):15–31. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geomo​rph.​2004.​06.​010
Balica SF, Wright NG, van der Meulen F (2012) A flood vulnerability index for coastal cities and its use in
assessing climate change impacts. Nat Hazards. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​012-​0234-1
Baptista SR (2014) Design and use of composite indices in assessment of climate change vulnerability and
resilience. United States Agency International Development (USAID), no July, p 53
Baranowski DB, Flatau MK, Flatau PJ, Karnawati D, Barabasz K, Labuz M, Latos B, Schmidt JM, Paski
JAI (2020) Social-media and newspaper reports reveal large-scale meteorological drivers of floods on
sumatra. Nat Commun 11(1):1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41467-​020-​16171-2
Barroca B, Bernardara P, Mouchel JM, Hubert G (2006) Indicators for identification of urban flooding vul-
nerability. Nat Hazard 6(4):553–561. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​nhess-6-​553-​2006
Bates P (2023) Uneven burden of urban flooding. Nature Sustain 6(1):9–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​
s41893-​022-​01000-9
Bates PD, Quinn N, Sampson C, Smith A, Wing O, Sosa J, Savage J et al (2021) Combined modeling of
US fluvial, pluvial, and coastal flood hazard under current and future climates. Water Resour Res
57(2):1–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2020W​R0286​73
Berke PR, Lyles W, Smith G (2014) Impacts of federal and state hazard mitigation policies on local land use
policy. J Plan Educ Res 34(1):60–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07394​56X13​517004
Binns AD (2022) Sustainable development and flood risk management. J Flood Risk Manage 15(2):3–5.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jfr3.​12807
Brenkert AL, Malone EL (2005) Modeling vulnerability and resilience to climate change: a case study of
India and Indian States. Clim Change 72(1–2):57–102. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10584-​005-​5930-3
Cardona OD, Van Aalst MK, Birkmann J, Fordham M, Mc Gregor G, Rosa P, Pulwarty RS et al (2012)
Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters
 Natural Hazards

to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change
9781107025:65–108. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​CBO97​81139​177245.​005
Census of India (2011) Census of India, 2011. Econ Pol Wkly 46(4):5
Cervone G, Sava E, Huang Q, Schnebele E, Harrison J, Waters N (2016) Using twitter for tasking remote-
sensing data collection and damage assessment: 2013 boulder flood case study. Int J Remote Sens
37(1):100–124. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01431​161.​2015.​11176​84
Chakrabarti PGD (2017) Measuring disaster risks and resilience at sub-national level in india institute of
disaster management of India. UNISDR Terminol Disaster Risk Reduct, 1–31
Chang H, Pallathadka A, Sauer J, Grimm NB, Zimmerman R, Cheng C, Iwaniec DM et al (2021) Assess-
ment of urban flood vulnerability using the social-ecological-technological systems framework in six
US cities. Sustain Cities Soc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scs.​2021.​102786
Chevuturi A, Dimri AP (2016) Investigation of Uttarakhand (India) disaster-2013 using weather research
and forecasting model. Nat Hazards 82(3):1703–1726. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​016-​2264-6
Cutter SL, Ash KD, Emrich CT (2014) The geographies of community disaster resilience. Glob Environ
Chang 29:65–77. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gloen​vcha.​2014.​08.​005
Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Lynn Shirley W (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q
84(2):242–261. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1540-​6237.​84020​02
Daniel Bakibinga-Ibembe J, Said VA, Mungai NW (2011) Environmental laws and policies related to peri-
odic flooding and sedimentation in the lake Victoria Basin (LVB) of East Africa. Afr J Environ Sci
Technol 5(5):367–380
Dash P, Punia M (2019) Governance and disaster: analysis of land use policy with reference to Uttarakhand
Flood 2013, India. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2019.​101090
Deluge, The, Hydrological Settings, Earlier Studies, Storm Water, Solid Waste Disposal, and Storm Water
Management (2006) INDEX Name of Chapter
de Moel H, Aerts JCJH (2011) Effect of uncertainty in land use, damage models and inundation depth on
flood damage estimates. Nat Hazards 58(1):407–425. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​010-​9675-6
DFID Capstone Team (2015) Quantifying governance: an indicator-based approach, no March
Disaster Management (2013) U TTARAKHAND
Dordi T, Henstra D, Thistlethwaite J (2022) Flood risk management and governance: a bibliometric review
of the literature. J Flood Risk Manage 15(2):1–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jfr3.​12797
Fang H, Beaudoing HK, Rodell M, Teng WL, Vollmer BE (2009) Global land data assimilation system
(GLDAS) products, services and application from nasa hydrology data and information services
center (HDISC). In: American society for photogrammetry and remote sensing annual conference
2009, ASPRS 2009, vol 1, pp 151–59
Ferretti V, Montibeller G (2019) An integrated framework for environmental multi-impact spatial risk anal-
ysis. Risk Anal 39(1):257–273. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​risa.​12942
Gandini A, Garmendia L, Prieto I, Álvarez I, San-José JT (2020) A holistic and multi-stakeholder methodol-
ogy for vulnerability assessment of cities to flooding and extreme precipitation events. Sustain Cities
Soc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scs.​2020.​102437
Ganji K, Gharechelou S, Ahmadi A, Johnson BA (2022) Riverine flood vulnerability assessment and zoning
using geospatial data and MCDA method in Aq’Qala. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 82:103345. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2022.​103345
Nair GR, Nair A, Shamsudeen SD, Mohan MG, Sankaran A (2023) Basin-scale streamflow projections
for greater Pamba river basin, India integrating GCM ensemble modelling and flow accumulation-
weighted LULC overlay in deep learning environment. Sustainability 15(19):1–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3390/​su151​914148
Ghosh M, Ghosh S, Karmakar S (2024) Assessment of socio-economic strategies for managing regional
flood risk in an urban coastal catchment. Urban Clim 58(September):102142. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​uclim.​2024.​102142
Guerreiro MJ, Lajinha T, Abreu I (2008) Flood Analysis with the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI).
Revista Da Faculdade De Ciênca e Tecnologia. Porto 4:8–14
Hahn MB, Riederer AM, Foster SO (2009) The livelihood vulnerability index: a pragmatic approach to
assessing risks from climate variability and change-a case study in Mozambique. Glob Environ
Chang 19(1):74–88. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gloen​vcha.​2008.​11.​002
Hegger DLT, Driessen PPJ, Dieperink C, Wiering M, Tom Raadgever GT, van Rijswick HFMW (2014)
Assessing stability and dynamics in flood risk governance: an empirically illustrated research
approach. Water Resour Manage 28(12):4127–4142. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11269-​014-​0732-x
Hegger DLT, Driessen PPJ, Wiering M, Van Rijswick HFMW, Kundzewicz ZW, Matczak P, Crabbé A et al
(2016) Toward more flood resilience: is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way
forward? Ecol Soc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​08854-​210452
Natural Hazards

Hurlbert M, Gupta J (2016) Adaptive governance, uncertainty, and risk: policy framing and responses to
climate change, drought, and flood. Risk Anal 36(2):339–356. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​risa.​12510
ISACA (2021) https://​www.​isaca.​org/​resou​rces/​isaca-​journ​al/​issues/​2021/​volume-​2/​risk-​asses​sment-​and-​
analy​sis-​metho​ds
Ishiwatari M (2019) Flood risk governance: establishing collaborative mechanism for integrated approach.
Progr Disaster Sci 2:100014. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​pdisas.​2019.​100014
Iyengar NS, Sudarshan P (1982) A method of classifying regions from multivariate data’, economic and
political weekly. Special Article 17(51):2048–2052
Jain J, Muñoz F, Khare D (2021) Environmental resilience and transformation in times of COVID-19. Envi-
ron Resil Trans times COVID-19 2019:191–205. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​c2020-0-​02703-9
Jain J, Muñoz-Arriola F, Garg D et al (2024) Assessing urban community resilience to flood using a hybrid
multi-criteria decision-making approach: a case of Guwahati City, Assam, India. Earth Syst Environ.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s41748-​024-​00534-6
Jalayer F, De Risi R, De Paola F, Giugni M, Manfredi G, Gasparini P, Topa ME et al (2014) Probabilis-
tic GIS-based method for delineation of urban flooding risk hotspots. Nat Hazards 73(2):975–1001.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​014-​1119-2
Jozaei J, Chuang WC, Allen CR, Garmestani A (2022) Social vulnerability, social-ecological resilience and
coastal governance. Glob Sustain. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​sus.​2022.​10
Kaoje IU, Abdul Rahman MZ, Tam TH, Mohd Salleh MR (2019) An indicator-based approach for micro-
scale physical flood vulnerability mapping. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci ISPRS
Arch 42(4/W16):331–337. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​isprs-​archi​ves-​XLII-4-​W16-​331-​2019
Kazakis N, Kougias I, Patsialis T (2015) Assessment of flood hazard areas at a regional scale using an
index-based approach and analytical hierarchy process: application in Rhodope-Evros Region,
Greece. Sci Total Environ 538:555–563. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2015.​08.​055
Koks EE, Jongman B, Husby TG, Botzen WJW (2015) Combining hazard, exposure and social vulnerability
to provide lessons for flood risk management. Environ Sci Policy 47:42–52. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
envsci.​2014.​10.​013
Kourgialas NN, Karatzas GP (2011) Flood management and a GIS modelling method to assess flood-hazard
areas—a case study. Hydrol Sci J. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02626​667.​2011.​555836
Kreibich H, Di Baldassarre G, Vorogushyn S, Aerts JCJH, Apel H, Aronica GT, Arnbjerg-Nielsen K et al
(2017) Adaptation to flood risk: results of international paired flood event studies. Earth’s Future
5(10):953–965. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​2017E​F0006​06
Krieger K (2013) The limits and variety of risk-based governance: the case of flood management in Ger-
many and England. Regul Govern 7(2):236–257. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​rego.​12009
Kundzewicz ZW, Krysanova V, Dankers R, Hirabayashi Y, Kanae S, Hattermann FF, Huang S et al (2017)
Differences in flood hazard projections in Europe-their causes and consequences for decision making.
Hydrol Sci J 62(1):1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02626​667.​2016.​12413​98
Lal PN, Mitchell T, Aldunce P, Auld H, Mechler R, Miyan A, Romano LE et al (2012) National systems
for managing the risks from climate extremes and disasters. Managing the risks of extreme events
and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​CBO97​81139​177245.​009.
Lee D, Ahmadul H, Patz J, Block P (2021) Predicting social and health vulnerability to floods in Bangla-
desh. Nat Hazard 21(6):1807–1823. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​nhess-​21-​1807-​2021
Linkov I, Trump BD (2019) Risk, systems and decisions the science and practice of resilience
Linkov I, Trump BD, Fox-Lent C (2016) Resilience: approaches to risk analysis and governance. Resour
Guide Resil no. December 2015, 1–12
Liu J, Dawei A (2009) Indices for calibration data selection of the rainfall‐runoff model.Pdf. Water Resour
Res
Londono S (2011) 4th International Conference on Medical, no 15, 2016
Malakar K, Mishra T (2017) Assessing socio-economic vulnerability to climate change: a city-level index-
based approach. Clim Dev 9(4):348–363. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17565​529.​2016.​11544​49
Mall RK, Srivastava RK, Banerjee T, Mishra OP, Bhatt D, Sonkar G (2019) Disaster risk reduction includ-
ing climate change adaptation over south Asia: challenges and ways forward. Int J Disaster Risk Sci
10(1):14–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13753-​018-​0210-9
Martha TR, Roy P, Govindharaj KB, Vinod Kumar K, Diwakar PG, Dadhwal VK (2015) Landslides
triggered by the june 2013 extreme rainfall event in parts of Uttarakhand State, India. Landslides
12(1):135–146. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10346-​014-​0540-7
Merz B, Blöschl G, Vorogushyn S, Dottori F, Aerts JC, Bates P, Bertola M, Kemter M, Kreibich H, Lall U,
Macdonald E (2021) Causes, impacts and patterns of disastrous river floods. Nature Rev Earth Envi-
ron 2(9):592–609. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s43017-​021-​00195-3
 Natural Hazards

Meyer V, Haase D, Scheuer S (2008) A multicriteria flood risk assessment and mapping approach. Flood
Risk Manage Res Pract. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1201/​97802​03883​020.​ch200
Mishra V, Tiwari AD, Kumar R (2022) A framework to incorporate spatiotemporal variability of rainfall
extremes in summer monsoon declaration in India. Environ Res Lett 17(9):094039. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1088/​1748-​9326/​ac8c5c
Mohanty A, Wadhawan S (2021) Mapping India’s climate vulnerability a district level assessment, no
October
Müller C, Cramer W, Hare WL, Lotze-Campen H (2011) Climate change risks for African agriculture. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 108(11):4313–4315. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​10150​78108
Nandargi S, Gaur A, Mulye SS (2016) Hydrological analysis of extreme rainfall events and severe rain-
storms over Uttarakhand, India. Hydrol Sci J 61(12):2145–2163. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02626​667.​
2015.​10859​90
Nasiri H, Yusof MJM, Ali TAM (2016) An overview to flood vulnerability assessment methods. Sustain
Water Resour Manage 2(3):331–336. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40899-​016-​0051-x
National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Watershed Management (1999) New Strategies for Ameri-
ca’s Watersheds. National Academy Press.
NDMA (2008) Management of Flooding. A publication of the National Disaster Management Authority,
Government of India. January, 2008, New Delhi
NDMA (2010) Management of Urban Flooding. A publication of the National Disaster Management
Authority, Government of India, New Delhi
National Disaster Management Plan (2019) A publication of the National Disaster Management Authority,
Government of India. November 2019, New Delhi
Oikonomidis D, Dimogianni S, Kazakis N, Voudouris K (2015) A GIS/remote sensing-based methodology
for groundwater potentiality assessment in Tirnavos Area, Greece. J Hydrol 525:197–208. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jhydr​ol.​2015.​03.​056
Organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD) (2008) OECD annual reoport. a compre-
hensive report on OECD activities in 2007–2008
Pan X, Rahman A, Haddad K, Ouarda TBMJ (2022) Peaks-over-threshold model in flood frequency analy-
sis: a scoping review. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 36(9):2419–2435. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00477-​022-​02174-6
Parsania PS, Virparia PV (2016) A comparative analysis of image interpolation algorithms. Ijarcce 5(1):29–
34. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17148/​ijarc​ce.​2016.​5107
Pathak S, Liu M, Jato-Espino D, Zevenbergen C (2020) Social, economic and environmental assessment of
urban sub-catchment flood risks using a multi-criteria approach: a case study in Mumbai City, India. J
Hydrol 591(February):125216. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhydr​ol.​2020.​125216
Pianosi F, Wagener T (2018) Distribution-based sensitivity analysis from a generic input-output sample.
Environ Model Softw. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envso​ft.​2018.​07.​019
Pinheiro EG, Garcias CM, Ferentz L, Da Fonseca MN (2021) Disaster preparedness indicators: an applica-
tion in the state of Paraná, Brazil. Cidades. https://​doi.​org/​10.​15847/​CCT.​20450
Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Adams H, Adelekan I, Adler C, Adrian R, Aldunce P, Ali E, Ara Begum R,
Bednar-Friedl B, Bezner Kerr R, Biesbroek R, Birkmann J, Bowen K, Caretta MA, Carnicer J, Cas-
tellanos E, Cheong TS, Chow W, Cissé G, Zaiton Ibrahim Z (2019) Foreword technical and preface.
climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation,
sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems
Quesada-Román A (2022) Flood risk index development at the municipal level in costa rica: a methodologi-
cal framework. Environ Sci Policy 133(March):98–106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envsci.​2022.​03.​012
Ranger N, Lopez A (2011) The Role of Climate Change in Urban Flood Risk Management Today, 1–17.
http://​siter​esour​ces.​world​bank.​org/​INTEA​PREGT​OPHAZ​RISKM​GMT/​Resou​rces/​40778​99-​12289​
26673​636/5-​Nicola_​Ranger_​Ana_​Lopez.​pdf
Roodman D (2006) Building and running an effective policy index: lessons from the commitment to devel-
opment index. Foreign Policy
Saaty RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process-what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9(3–5):161–176.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0270-​0255(87)​90473-8
Saeed Far S, Wahab AKA (2016) Evaluation of peaks-over-threshold method. Ocean Sci Discuss. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​5194/​os-​2016-​47
Sarzaeim P, Muñoz-Arriola F (2024) A method to estimate climate drivers of maize yield predictability
leveraging genetic-by-environment interactions in the US and Canada. Agronomy. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3390/​agron​omy14​040733
Saulnier DD, Dixit AM, Nunes AR (2018) Disaster risk factors-hazards, exposure and vulnerability. WHO
Guid Res Health Emerg Disaster Risk Mange, 2:151–163
Natural Hazards

Schneeberger K, Steinberger T (2018) Generation of spatially heterogeneous flood events in an alpine

region-adaptation and application of a multivariate modelling procedure. Hydrology 5(1):1–25.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​hydro​logy5​010005
Schumann AH, Funke R, Schultz GA (2000) Application of a geographic information system for conceptual
rainfall-runoff modeling. J Hydrol 240(1–2):45–61. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0022-​1694(00)​00312-7
Singhal A, Jaseem M, Jha SK (2023) Spatial connections in extreme precipitation events obtained from
NWP forecasts: a complex network approach. Atmos Res 282:106538. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​atmos​
res.​2022.​106538
Situation Report (2016) Situation report VI: flood SITUATION in Assam A. Situation report: as per the
Information Received from the Government Sources as on 26
Stecko S, Barber N (2007) Exposing vulnerabilities: monsoon floods in Mumbai, India
Stuart L, Hobbins M, Niebuhr E, Ruane AC, Pulwarty R, Hoell A, Thiaw W, Rosenzweig C, Muñoz-
Arriola F, Jahn M, Farrar M (2024) Enhancing global food security: opportunities for the Ameri-
can meteorological society. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 105(4):E760–E777. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1175/​
BAMS-D-​22-​0106.1
Taherdoost H (2017) Decision making using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP); a step by step approach
hamed taherdoost to cite this version: HAL Id: Hal-02557320 decision making using the analytic
hierarchy process (AHP); a step by step approach. J Econ Manage Syst 2:244–246
Tang J, Li Y, Cui S, Lilai X, Yuanchao H, Ding S, Nitivattananon V (2021) Analyzing the spatiotemporal
dynamics of flood risk and its driving factors in a coastal watershed of southeastern China. Ecol Indic
121:107134. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecoli​nd.​2020.​107134
Tate E, Rahman MA, Emrich CT, Sampson CC (2021) Flood exposure and social vulnerability in the United
States. Nat Hazards 106(1):435–457. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​020-​04470-2
The Economic Times: https://​econo​micti​mes.​india​times.​com/​news/​polit​ics-​and-​nation/​pm-​annou​nces-​rs-​
400-​cr-​flood-​relief-​for-​mahar​ashtra/​artic​leshow/​18863​35.​cms?​from=​mdr
The Hindu: https://​www.​thehi​ndu.​com/​news/​natio​nal/​other-​states/​pm-​annou​nces-​rs-​1000-​cr-​relief-​for-​uttar​
akhand/​artic​le482​9561.​ece
The Scroll: https://​scroll.​in/​artic​le/​892190/​assam-​hasnt-​recei​ved-​any-​speci​al-​centr​al-​aid-​since-​2014-​despi​
te-​being-​wreck​ed-​by-​floods-​every-​year
Thieken AH, Mohor GS, Kreibich H, Müller M (2022) Compound inland flood events: different pathways,
different impacts and different coping options. Nat Hazard 22(1):165–185. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​
nhess-​22-​165-​2022
Tortajada C (2010) Water governance: some critical issues. Int J Water Resour Dev 26(2):297–307. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07900​62100​36832​98
Turvey R (2007) Vulnerability assessment of developing countries: the case of small-island developing
states. Dev Policy Rev 25(2):243–264. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​7679.​2007.​00368.x
Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson JX,
Luers A, Martello ML, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A (2003) A framework for vulnerability analy-
sis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A 100(14):8074–8079. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​
pnas.​12313​35100
TurnerII BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson
JX, Luerse A, Martello ML, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A (2014) A framework for vulnerability
analysis in sustainability science. Nat Gas Geosci 25(14):91–97. https://​doi.​org/​10.​11764/j.​issn.​1672-​
1926.​2014.​S1.​0091
USAID (2014) U.S. agency fo r interna tional development annual progres s report to congress: global
health programs FY. Health Care Financing Review, vol 18
Valle RF, Varandas SGP, Sanches Fernandes LF, Pacheco FAL (2014) Groundwater quality in rural water-
sheds with environmental land use conflicts. Sci Total Environ 493:812–827. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2014.​06.​068
Vijaykumar P, Abhilash S, Sreenath AV, Athira UN, Mohanakumar K, Mapes BE, Chakrapani B, Sahai
AK, Niyas TN, Sreejith OP (2021) Kerala floods in consecutive years - its association with mes-
oscale cloudburst and structural changes in monsoon clouds over the west coast of India. Weather
Clim Extrem 33:100339. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wace.​2021.​100339
Vincent K (2004) Creating an index of social vulnerability to climate change for Africa. Tyndall Centre
Clim Change Res 56:41
Vojtek M (2023) Indicator-based approach for fluvial flood risk assessment at municipal level in Slovakia.
Sci Rep 13(1):1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41598-​023-​32239-7
Wang Z, Jingjing Wu, Cheng L, Liu K, Wei YM (2018) Regional flood risk assessment via coupled fuzzy
C-means clustering methods: an empirical analysis from China’s Huaihe river basin. Nat Hazards
93(2):803–822. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​018-​3325-9
 Natural Hazards

Wilson B, Tate E, Emrich CT (2021) Flood recovery outcomes and disaster assistance barriers for vulner-
able populations. Front Water 3:752307. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​frwa.​2021.​752307
Wing OEJ, Lehman W, Bates PD, Sampson CC, Quinn N, Smith AM, Neal JC, Porter JR, Kousky C (2022)
Inequitable patterns of US flood risk in the anthropocene. Nat Clim Chang 12(2):156–162. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1038/​s41558-​021-​01265-6
Zhang H, Shao Z, Hu B, Huang X, Zhao J, Wu W, Fan Y (2021) Evaluating the weight sensitivity in AHP-
based flood risk estimation models. ArXiv
Zhou P, Ang BW, Zhou DQ (2010) Weighting and aggregation in composite indicator construction:
a multiplicative optimization approach. Soc Indic Res 96(1):169–181. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11205-​009-​9472-3

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.