HOUSEHOLD FLOOD EXPERIENCE A comparative case study of two neighborhoods after the flood of December 2015 in Chennai, India.

HOUSEHOLD FLOOD

EXPERIENCE

A comparative case study of two neighborhoods

after the flood of December 2015 in Chennai, India.

Author: Huub Saris

Address: Amstelvlietstraat 114 E-mail: huub_saris@hotmail.com

Phone number: 0639558389 Student number: 10678662 Supervisor: Jaap Rothuizen Date: June 24, 2016

2

T

Acknowledgement 3

Introduction 4

Theoretic Framework 6

Natural disaster and climate change 6

Disaster Management; Prevention, Coping capacity and Recovery 6

Neighborhood Characteristics 8

Methodology 10

Location 10

Research methods 14

Limitations 16

Context of the neighborhoods 18

Impact of socioeconomic status on flood impact 18

Impact of physical neighborhood characteristics on flood impact 18

Organization of both neighborhoods 19

Flood Stages 23

Before; prevention 23

During; coping 23

After; recovery 23

Disaster management per neighborhood 25

Sai Nagar 25

Selvaganapathi Nagar 31

Comparison of Sai Nagar and Selvaganapathi Nagar 36

Prevention 36 Recovery 38 Conclusion 40 Recommendation 41 Further findings 41 Literature 42

3

A

CKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to sincerely thank Mariya Susai for being a very good and helpful translator and researcher. Without him I would not be able to do my research as good as we did together. He learned me a lot about doing research which I will never forget.

I would like to thank Jaap Rothuizen for the accompaniment, energy and focus he has given me throughout the bachelor thesis program.

I would also like to thank Maarten Bavinck for introducing me to India.

At last, I would also like to thank the residents of Sai Nagar and Selvaganapathi Nagar for the hospitality and all the tea’s we drank together.

4

I

NTRODUCTION

Damage due to natural disasters has increased intensively in the last decades (Thieken, Kreibich, Müller & Merz, 2007). Floods accounted for approximately 50% of all economic loss worldwide due to natural disasters (Thieken, Kreibich, Müller & Merz, 2007). In late November and early December 2015 one of the largest cities in India flooded due to extreme weather conditions. November 2015 was the wettest month in a century were 27 people died due to the monsoon rain. The amount of rain that fell on the second of December was the highest amount in 100 years (BBC, 2015). This extreme rainfall was the reason the Chembarambakkam dam was about to break due to the water pressure. The government released a lot of water from the dam in late November in order to decrease the water pressure in the dam. Due to the immense rainfall of December second and the water that was released from the Chembarambakkam dam Chennai eventually flooded. Four hundred and twenty-one persons died of drowning, electrocution, lightning strike and wall collapse due to the flood between October 28 and December 31. This flood interrupted the lives of millions of people in different ways. The area of crop loss was estimated at 382.768 hectares, 98.000 cattle, poultry, goats and pigs were killed by the floods. In total approximately 304.200 families suffered partial or complete damage to their homes (The Hindu, 2016).

Due to the changing climate, extreme weather conditions happen more frequently than a couple years ago (Van Aalst, 2006; Helmer & Hilhorst, 2006). Along with the decreasing natural water bodies in and around large cities this causes natural disasters, such as floods (Venkatachalam, 2014). Interestingly, people act differently in particular situations, such as flood situations. For example, this can be caused by cultural backgrounds, economic capital and ethnic differences (Shaw, 2014). Because people act differently in disastrous situations it is interesting to investigate why they act differently and which actions are the most sufficient, for example during floods. Therefore, the focus of the research will be on how households managed themselves during a flood situation and hereby hopefully elucidate on this particular subject. According to Berke et al. (2008) there are only a few studies which have examined individual and household coping behavior. This thesis will contemplate the experiences of two different neighborhoods before, during and after the floods of December 2015 in Chennai. While comparing both neighborhoods with each other, we can easily derive positive and negative neighborhood characteristics in times of a natural disaster. This can be useful for further development of neighborhoods in natural disaster prone areas.

The main question that is going to be answered in this bachelor thesis is: “How have neighborhood characteristics influenced the household’s experiences of the December 2015 flood in Chennai?”

The thesis consists of a theoretic framework where concepts that are useful for the study are displayed. In the theoretic framework the concepts ‘disaster management’, ‘climate

5

change’, ‘prevention strategies’, ‘coping mechanisms’, ‘disaster recovery’, ‘socioeconomic status’, ‘physical neighborhood characteristics’ and ‘community based organization’ will be discussed, and linked together. The methodology will consist of a research approach, the pros and cons of a comparative case study. The location of the research will be introduced and the research methods will be explained. The limitations the research and the study has will be discussed in the methodology as well. Furthermore, I will give a contextualization of the research. The neighborhood characteristics will be contextualized in how they can have impact on the different flood stages and the organizations of both neighborhoods will be displayed. Thereafter, the three flood stages will discussed; prevention, coping and recovery. Subsequently the results of the research will be discussed. These results will be given per neighborhood separately. Thereafter both neighborhoods will be compared with each other, while linking the theoretic framework to the results. The research will be concluded at the end of the thesis, were the sub questions and the main question will be answered. Core findings will be presented, a recommendation will be given and at last further findings will be displayed.

6

T

HEORETIC

F

RAMEWORK

The theoretic framework will provide the concepts that will be used in the study.

Natural disaster and climate change

C

Over the past few decades the climate has changed dramatically (Van Aalst, 2006). These changes are caused by the extreme amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere due to extensive use of fossil fuels. Due to these gases, the earth gets warmer and this has massive impact on the climate of certain countries. These changes in the climate have impact on human and non-human lives. While changes in average natural conditions can have serious impact and consequences by themselves, the larger direct impact and consequences will be felt by the extreme weather conditions (Van Aalst, 2006; Helmer & Hilhorst, 2006). These extreme weather conditions can result in natural disasters, when for example rivers flood and dams break due to the force of the water.

Disaster Management; Prevention, Coping capacity and Recovery

D

Disaster Management has the focus to reduce the risk and vulnerability posed by actual and potential hazards (O’Brien, O’Keefe, Rose & Wisner, 2006). Hazards can be in different forms, there are natural and technical hazards. In this thesis the focus will be on natural hazards, especially flood hazards. Disaster management is created because of the need to protect society from hazards that live in an area which falls under governmental jurisdiction. India is one of the most vulnerable developing countries which suffers very often from natural disasters which has devastating and disruptive impact on the human life, economy and environment (Joshi & Himanshu, 2012). Important to mention for this thesis is the relationship between the degree to which communities are interested in disaster management planning and the degree to which the community has experienced disasters. O’Brien et al. (2006) states that the greater the exposure to disasters is, the greater the interest in disaster management. When the community thinks there is nothing to protect them from, the community will not be interested in managing a disaster that will never occur.

P

S

Prevention strategies are used to prevent natural disasters from disrupting human and inhuman life. Prevention strategies usually focus on the pre-event and event stage of the disaster. Prevention strategies can be for example, floodplain management, improved road infrastructure, improved public education about flood risks, use of early warning systems and risk estimation systems and ensuring that there is an emergency response plan and sufficient response capabilities (Franklin, King, Aitken & Leggat, 2014). Prevention strategies

7 vary from place to place due to cultural, socio-economic and ethnic context. Therefore prevention strategies need to be customized per particular local neighborhood or community, whereas the characteristics of the flood also play an important part (Shaw, 2014; Paul & Routray, 2010). The prevention strategies are implemented at beforehand, whereas these prevention strategies will be useful before the flood and in the early stages of the flood. During the flood people and households need to cope with the situation they are in.

C

C

Coping capacity began to develop 40 years ago when development workers began to notice that different people do have different vulnerabilities or capacity to be able to handle a natural disaster. Coping capacity is the capacity to be able to cope with a certain situation, mostly disastrous, using available skills and resources (Birkmann, 2006; Scheuer, Haase & Meyer, 2011). People began to think about different type of vulnerability and different coping capacities throughout the world when scientists studied different natural disasters in the world. Death, injury, loss and the ability to recover were closely related to livelihoods according to Birkmann (2006). Vulnerability is an economic matter but also depends on the location of people and their access to political power. Social relations and knowledge also influence vulnerability and coping capacity. Even in communities, vulnerability and therefore coping capacity differs per household. Coping capacity needs to be seen as an immediate hazard-related response to disaster (Scheuer, Haase & Meyer, 2011). When the flood is over people need to recover from the disaster, mentally and physically. Sometimes people lost a lot during a flood and they struggle with the recovery after the disaster.

D

R

Disaster recovery is the recovery of an area after a disaster has taken place. The period after a disaster gives opportunities to strengthen local organizational capacity to facilitate economic, social and physical development in the affected area. A developmental approach can have multiple benefits according Berke et al. (2008). When developing an area after a disaster it can reduce the cost of development and increase the effectiveness of recovery aid policies (Berke, Kartez & Wenger, 2008). Recovery can also be physical, to reduce future vulnerability to disasters. The support seems to be the strongest for hazard mitigation right after a disaster (Berke, Kartez & Wenger, 2008). For a neighborhood to recover effectively and quickly there should be local reliance on internal capabilities instead of only relying on external resources and help. The community must also have knowledge about how to get external assistance, for instance from the government (Berke, Kartez & Wenger, 2008). Disaster recovery varies from place to place and from community to community. This is due to the social, economic, religious, political and other issues of an area (Shaw, 2014). Disaster recovery plan can also aim at reducing future risks through integrating disaster prevention mechanisms when recovering from other disasters (Shaw, 2014). The stages of a disaster which form disaster management are influenced by different concepts. Shaw (2014) states

8 that socioeconomic status and context of the neighborhood play an important role in the prevention strategies. According to Berke et al. (2008) it is necessary to have knowledge about how to get assistance from the government, which can be a job for an organization in a neighborhood.

Neighborhood Characteristics

S

S

Socioeconomic status is one of the foremost used independent variable in social research. There are multiple interpretations of the concept because no consensus is met on how to define the concept (Teevan, 1985). Socioeconomic status is often measured as a combination of education, income and occupation (APA, 2016; Winkleby, Jatulis, Frank & Fortmann, 1992; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). The American Psychological Association (2016) states that socioeconomic status reveal inequities regarding access to resources, privileges, power and control. The intergenerational mobility concerned socioeconomic status is important to contemplate. This means that children will have more or less the same socioeconomic status when they are adults as their parents have as adults (Blanden, 2011). People with the same socioeconomic status usually live together in a neighborhood. This has much impact on the services a neighborhood has and how a neighborhood functions (Antunes & Plumlee (1977).

P

N

C

Physical characteristics of the home neighborhood are important for humans. They influence the quality of life in multiple ways, it shapes the activities of the childhood and it is a symbolic source of status or collective identity (Taylor, 1984). The physical characteristics of a neighborhood influence and are influenced by the transportation access, illegal and/or uncontrolled urbanization, housing quality, schools and neighborhood intersectionality. Physical characteristics such as lack of poor drainage systems also influence the quality of life. Whereas in neighborhoods which are flood prone and do not have a sufficient drainage system also experience exclusion from participatory processes and political leverage, leaving the people of the neighborhood unable to access power to improve their neighborhood characteristics (Rufat, Tate, Burton & Maroof, 2015). To gain the access to power and to improve their neighborhood characteristics, a neighborhood can start an organization from where they can act as a collective towards the government.

C

B

O

Community based organization is a social organization of a community or neighborhood. This can manifest itself within friendship networks, neighboring, social ties, social capital, sense of community, neighborhood cohesion, informal social control, collective efficacy, and neighboring and organizational participation (Cantillon, 2006). It is broadly known that communities vary from place to place (Shaw, 2014). A community based organization can be

9

a small neighborhood association who acts as a collective towards the government. A community based organization does not have to be a registered association with a president and its members, it can also be a group of people who like to talk to each other concerning the neighborhood. One of the outcomes of a community based organization is an increase in the cohesion in the neighborhood (Cantillon, 2006). According to Berkowitz (2000) neighborhoods start an organization for personal empowerment, wellness and increased competence for those who are involved. Furthermore, when a community organization is successful it also results in ‘better communities’ and therefore, the community will improve the whole neighborhood. Berkowitz (2000) states that community organizations have additional personal and social consequences that people see as desirable. Such as greater happiness, increased neighboring (cohesion), stronger social support networks and less individual and community suffering. In times of economically bad times, community organization might stimulate cooperation or self-reliance to protect the community from outside (Berkowitz, 2000).

10

M

ETHODOLOGY

This research will be a descriptive study using a comparative case study design. The cases that will be described will consists of different neighborhoods located next to each other. A comparative case study design studies two contrasting cases using somewhat the same methods (Bryman, 2012). As Bryman (2012) states ‘it embodies the logic of comparison, in that it implies that we can understand social phenomena better when they are compared in relation to two or more meaningfully contrasting cases or situations’ (p.72). The downside of a comparative case study is that the researcher will pay less attention to the specific context and more to the ways in which both cases can be contrasted, according to Dyer and Wilkins (1991). Usually this design is used in intensive qualitative interviewing of multiple cases. Which is what I have done during my stay in India.

I will try to answer these sub questions in the following chapters, concluding with the main question in the conclusion:

o What are the prevention strategies in Sai Nagar and Selvaganapathi Nagar?

o How did the households in Sai Nagar and Selvaganapathi Nagar cope with the flood situation?

o How did the households in Sai Nagar and Selvaganapathi Nagar recover from the flood?

o What are the differences between both neighborhoods?

L

The research is situated in two neighborhoods, Sai Nagar and Selvaganapathi Nagar, which are situated in the area ´Okkiyam Thoraipakkam´ in southern Chennai, India. Next to the two neighborhoods lies a large marsh land, the Pallikaranai Marsh land. This marsh land is important in the framework of the location.

11

Chennai is the capital city of the state Tamil Nadu, which is located in the south east of India, figure 2. Tamil Nadu is 130058 square kilometers big and has a population of 72.147.030 million people (Government of Tamil Nadu, 2016). Chennai, former Madras was founded in 1639 by the British conquerors. The British left India and therefore Chennai at August the 15th in 1947 when it also became independent (Chennai District, n.d.). Chennai is the fourth largest metropolitan city in India with a surface area of 174 square kilometers and a population of more than 6,5 million people (Joseph, Rajendiran, Senthilnathan & Rakesh, 2012).

FIGURE 2 - INDIA, CHENNAI. SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA, 2016. EDITED BY HUUB SARIS, 2016.

Okkiyam Thoraipakkam also known as Thuraipakkam is an area in southern Chennai, east to the Pallikaranai marshland which is a reserve forest area and a bird sanctuary. In Thuraipakkam both research areas are located. Northwest of both research areas the Perungudi Dump Yard is located, which has great impact at the surrounding neighborhoods (Vink, 2014).

Pallikaranai is a marshland which provides multiple services, the marshland’s provisioning services are that it produces food, fresh water, fiber and fuel, biochemical products and generic materials. The marsh land’s regulatory services are the regulation of the climate, water regulation, water purification and waste treatment, which are just a few regulatory services of the marshland (Venkatachalam, 2014). All these services are being consumed by households and firms in and around the marshland. The marshland nowadays experiences

12

negative externalities who affect the ecosystem services of the marshland. The negative externalities, such as encroachment and dumping of liquids and solid waste inside the marshland are driven by urban development. Especially encroachment has caused severe problems for the ecosystem of the Pallikaranai marshland (Venkatachalam, 2014). The water storing capacity of the marshland has declined severely over the past decade (Venkatachalam, 2014).

Sai Nagar is located north of the ‘200 feet road’, the green line. From east to west there is an elevation difference of 7 feet which is approximately 2.10 meter. Sai Nagar is a neighborhood with a population of 2000 people who live in 450 households. The people living in Sai Nagar have a middle to high income and are mostly well educated. Doctors, engineers and business owners live in Sai Nagar. They earn roughly 30.000 to 60.000 rupees per month per person that works. The majority of the roads are paved and there is a closed drainage system. Houses are made out of stone and concrete and are mostly 2 storeys high. There are also a couple of well-maintained apartment flats. The only park in Thuraipakkam is located in Sai Nagar which points out how developed the neighborhood is. The neighborhood is expanding in population and therefore houses are being build or land is being sold. The St George Matric Higher Secondary School, for children until 10th standard is located in Sai Nagar, so children can go to school till high school in their own neighborhood. Sai Nagar has one fancy grocery shop, which is very neat and also sells food outside, such as samosas. This shop also indicates the difference between a poor neighborhood and a rich neighborhood. Whereas in a poor neighborhood you will not find shops like the one located in Sai Nagar. There is only one shop because Sai Nagar is located near the ‘200 feet road’ which is full off little shops and also one big shop.

13 FIGURE 3 – RESEARCH AREA’S. SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH EDITED BY HUUB SARIS, 2016

Selvaganapathi Nagar is located north of Sai Nagar and southeast of the Perungudi Dump Yard. Selvaganapathi Nagar has a population of 800 people who live in 250 households. The neighborhood is divided into two areas due to a grassland, see figure 3 and 4.

The majority of the neighborhood is on the east side of the grassland, indicated by the purple part. On the west side, represented by the blue part, the grassland is newer than the east side of the neighborhood.

Both areas are called Selvaganapathi Nagar, but they are slightly different. East

FIGURE 4 – BEGIN SELVAGANAPATHI NAGAR, GRASSLAND ON THE LEFT SIDE. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELDWORK.

14

Selvaganapathi Nagar is bigger than west Selvaganapathi Nagar (200 households in east and 50 in west, approximately). Furthermore, east Selvaganapathi Nagar is more distinct from Sai Nagar, whereas west Selvaganapathi Nagar is an extension of Sai Nagar and therefore less distinct. The people in Selvaganapathi Nagar live in mostly poor to lower middle income households who earn approximately 2000 to 8000 rupees per month. The roads are not paved and have an open drainage system. Therefore the roads are filthy and the neighborhood smells bad. The majority of people live on daily wages, varying from 200 to 600 rupees a day. They are auto (riksha) driver, small shop owners, or work in the construction as a wage laborer. The houses are mostly from stone, but are small and do not have a proper roof. Because their neighborhood is located next to the dump yard there are a lot of flies and mosquitos. There is a small difference in elevation level in Selvaganapathi Nagar which is about approximately 1 meter maximum. This lower end is on the Northwest side of the eastern neighborhood and on the northeast side of the western neighborhood, where also the dump yard is located. In east Selvaganapathi Nagar are a couple of small grocery shops, which are just window shops. In west Selvaganapathi Nagar there are no grocery shops.

R

The concepts, as mentioned earlier in the theoretic framework, are studied in four weeks. The study will be a comparative case study of two neighborhoods who differ foremost in socioeconomic status and level of organization (Vink, 2014). This study will be done with the assistance of a Tamil and English speaking translator.

Firstly, I intended to have a broad overview of both neighborhoods to know what is going on and how both neighborhoods are different from each other. Due to a key informant who lived in Sai Nagar, a general secretary of a local association, I came to know the neighborhood of Sai Nagar very quickly. With the use of snowball sampling the general secretary helped me getting in touch with a key informant in the other neighborhood, to whom I spoke to. Due to these interviews and talking to people on the streets I had some general information about the neighborhoods.

All of the interviews were conducted in the afternoon, because at that time most of the people were at home. The interviews were partly structured and partly semi-structured, therefore I had created an item list I wanted to discuss. Sometimes the respondent would tell something that would trigger other questions than I had in mind for the interview. When these questions were interesting enough it would be incorporated in the item list for the next interview. The interviews were in-debt interviews with 31 households and 6 interviews with people from associations. Sixteen households from Sai Nagar and fifteen households from Selvaganapathi Nagar. I used selective sampling and snowball sampling to collect the necessary data. I used selective sampling to conduct the household interviews and to get a very wide spectrum of people living in the research area. I interviewed fifteen households in

15

Sai Nagar, of these fifteen households I tried to interview people who lived on the ground floor and people living on the upper floors of a house. A lot of people went out to relatives during the floods, which is why I also selected 8 people who stayed in Sai Nagar and 8 people who evacuated to another place (figure 5). In Selvaganapathi Nagar I also tried to select as many upper floor houses as I could. This was more difficult. Mostly people who lived on the upper floors in the house are family members or renters of the person who lives on the ground floor, who wanted to do the interview instead.

Figure 9 shows a conceptualization of the research in which I differentiate three neighborhood characteristics. These are socioeconomic status, physical neighborhood characteristics and level of organization. These three neighborhood characteristics have different impact on the three flood stages, before (prevention), during (coping) and after (recovery). During the in-depth interviews the focus lies on the impact of the three major variables socioeconomic status, physical neighborhood characteristics and level of organization on the three flood stages within disaster management.

8 8

Sai Nagar Respondent Flood Situation Evacuated Stayed 9 6 Selvaganapathi Nagar Respondent Flood Situation

Evacuated Stayed

7 1 8

Sai Nagar House

Type

Selvaganapathi

Nagar House Type

Ground Floor Upper Floor Whole House FIGURE 6 - SELVAGANAPATHI NAGAR RESPONDENT FLOOD SITUATION. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELD WORK

FIGURE 5 - SAI NAGAR RESPONDENT FLOOD SITUATION. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELD WORK

FIGURE 7 - SAI NAGAR HOUSE TYPE. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELD WORK

FIGURE 8 - SELVAGANAPATHI NAGAR HOUSE TYPE. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELD WORK

16 FIGURE 9 – CONCEPTUALIZATION OF RESEARCH

With these methods I will try to answer my research question: “How have neighborhood characteristics influenced the household’s experiences of the December 2015 flood in Chennai?”

L

The study was done with the assistance of a Tamil and English speaking translator, which was very useful. I could not have done my research without this translator since only a limited amount of people could speak English. The translator was not only helpful for the language differences, but also for the cultural differences. The translator and I talked English with each other, which is not our native language for both of us. Therefore, translations from Dutch to English and the other way around had to be made. Similarly, my translator needed to translate himself from English to Tamil and the other way around. Sometimes, these language boundaries were difficult to overcome during an interview. Another limitation using a translator is that not everything is translated word for word. It might occur that the translator gives his own interpretation of the question and the answer given by the respondent. It would be possible that the translator hides answers from the researcher, because the translator thinks that this is not important for the research, while it actually is. The fieldwork was sometimes disturbed by the president of the Selvaganapathi Nagar

17

Residential Welfare Association who did not like it that I was doing research in his neighborhood. This man once interrupted and disrupted an interview. He also interrupted an interview with the use of his friends. Our respondents would stop talking when they saw him or someone who was friends of him.

Another limitation was that the subject had an emotional load and therefore people would get emotional during an interview. When this happened some questions could not be asked because people would get upset and want to end the interview. My translator and I handled this not with avoiding a particular subject, but to have a chat with the respondent about something different and try to ask the same question once more later during the interview. During the research, selective and snowball sampling is used to get the sample group. Snowball sampling can be disadvantageous for the sample group due to the strong impact of the first samples taken. Because I did both selective sampling and snowball sampling, this was not a problem for the final sample group.

It should be noted that after the flood, political parties were not allowed to help the victims of the flood because political parties could use this help as a sort of bribe. It was therefore not allowed to reach out as a political party to people in need.

At last, some people may have experienced disastrous situations and therefore their memory of the real situation may be different than what exactly happened. This is called dissociative amnesia, which can be caused by war, accidents or disasters, such as flood disasters (WebMD, n.d.).

18

C

ONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS

This chapter will contain the contextualization of both neighborhoods. The impact a certain socioeconomic status can have on the impact of the flood will be discussed. This will also been done for the physical characteristics of a neighborhood. At last the organization of both neighborhoods will be displayed.

I

Socioeconomic status has a massive impact on the impact of the flood on a household. This can manifest itself in different ways. The amount a household makes a month or a year has a great impact on how quickly and easily a household can manage the flood situation during and after the flood. Households with a lot of money can go out their houses and book a hotel to stay during the floods. When a household has not that kind of money they are unable to do so. After the flood people with a lot of money can more easily buy back their lost items with their own money or with a loan from relatives without paying a lot of interest. Poor people do not have this opportunity, they also do not have wealthy friends from whom they can loan sufficient money. Therefore, they are bound to loan money from moneylenders with a lot of interest, which can add up to 36% interest per year.

Loss of income depends on the kind of work people do. Daily wage workers can lose income for several days because they get paid per day in cash. People who work for companies and get a monthly wage mostly do not lose any income because their employee pays per month. A good relationship with your employee can be very useful. It can be useful in different ways, such as for a loan or housing. The fear of getting robbed when you leave your house can also influence the situation people put themselves in.

I

Elevation level differs throughout the neighborhoods. These elevation levels have great impact on the seriousness of the flood. Houses located in the upper area of the neighborhood are less harmed by the flood than households located in the lower area of the neighborhood. In the lower areas the water stagnated longer than in the upper laying areas. The distance between the affected households and the main roads ‘200 Feet Road’ and ‘Corporation Road’ can also influence the flood experience and the kind of help people got. The main roads are the higher areas and from there on into the neighborhood it became lower in most cases.

The people living on the ground floor of a house are differently affected than people living on the upper floors of a building. The people on the ground floor mostly vacated to another place, places such as a house of family or friend which was located in unaffected areas. The households who live on the first floor did sometimes also move out but this differs per person. Some people stayed to help their downstairs neighbors, some people stayed

19

because they had no relatives to go to. Other people stayed in their houses because of the fear that people would rob the place when they would move to a safer place. These people that were scared that they would be robbed where mostly wealthy people with a lot of jewelries.

Physical elements outside the house influenced the coping capacity of the household. Because both neighborhoods are known flood prone areas, people would build their houses with a high doorstep or stairwell to their front door which could result in that the foundation of the house would be 1 meter higher than the street level. Some households had this already implemented and the houses that are being build are doing the same, but with even higher foundations.

Physical elements inside the houses did also influence the coping capacity of the households. Households living on the ground floor tried to put their important and valuable belongings higher to safeguard the items from the water. Household who live in the ground floor also tried to move their belongings upstairs to their neighbor’s house, if they had any. Some people who only had a ground floor house tried to bring their valuable items to the roof and build shelters for their items in order to prevent them from getting wet. Another physical element can be the availability of rainwater harvesting mechanisms inside the house. Some people would have rainwater harvesting tanks on the roof which were very useful during the floods.

O

Both neighborhoods differ in the amount of organization, meaning the influence an organization has on the neighborhood. Influence can be in different forms, influence on the social cohesion in a neighborhood which are encouraged by the meetings were people mingle for example every Friday evening. Influence can also be on the physical level, such as road construction, sewage canals and drainage systems. An organization could reach out to the government to ask for certain things. An organization can also be of help during a disastrous situation, such as a flood. An organization can help with evacuation and providing shelter, providing food, and after the flood providing cleaning materials. Because an organization is mostly run by people who know people from the government, it is easier to get help from the government throughout the organization than on your own.

S

N

In Sai Nagar there are two active organizations who only act in Sai Nagar. The OMR Sri Sai Nagar Makkal Sangam, also known as the Sai Nagar Welfare association. And the Sri Sai Nagar House owners Association.

20 FIGURE 10 - SRI SAI NAGAR MAKKAL SANGAM. SOURCE:

AUTHORS FIELDWORK

FIGURE 11 - SRI SAI NAGAR HOUSE OWNERS ASSOCIATION. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELD WORK

The Sri Sai Nagar House Owners Association (SSNHOA) was founded in 1987, figure 11. They also represent rental houses even though their name suggests differently. In 2014 the SSNHOA and the Sai Nagar Welfare Association (SSNWA) were one organizations. Due to different opinions in the organization the SSNHOA split up and SSNWA, figure 10, was founded. According to the president of the SSNHOA the organization split up because of governmental plans for a sewage treatment plant being built in Sai Nagar. One half would want this to happen (now known as the Sri Sai Nagar Welfare Association), due to a bribe from the government, the other half would not want this (known as the Sri Sai Nagar House Owners Association).

Due to multiple interviews with people from the Sri Sai Nagar Welfare Association I came to know a fair amount about how the SSNWA manages their neighborhood. The SSNWA consists of:

1. Main member general body – 150 members 2. Executive committee – 55 members

3. Women group – 25 members

4. Youth group – 15 members (boys and girls, equally)

Every day at 18:00 they would discuss problems that have occurred that day in Sai Nagar. Every day at least 15 people come to discuss, these are not always the same people. Once a month they discuss the main agenda. What happened last month and are we satisfied with what we did, and what is going to happen next month? As mentioned before, the SSNWA consists of 4 groups, of which the main member general body consists of 150 members. These members are closely related to the executive members who have more influence in the association. The women group is actually a group that acts from outside of the association. The women act as a Self Help Group, but is not yet registered. They helped with cooking for the volunteers in the neighborhood during the flood.

21

The youth group consists of 15 members, equally divided in terms of gender. The children who participate in the youth group are children of executive members of the association. Their main task in the association is to help the other members of the association.

The association is active on social media such as Facebook. They post photos of events they have and what is happening in the neighborhood. I am also on the Facebook of OMR Sri Sai Nagar Makkal Sangam, where I stand with

my translator and the general secretary. The photo introduces me to the neighborhood, with the text: “Mr. Huub, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands visiting to Sri Sai Nagar for writing his thesis about the activities of our OMR Sri Sai Nagar Makkal Sangam, during the flood in December 2015.” (OMR Sri Sai Nagar Makkal Sangam, 2016).

The Sri Sai Nagar Welfare Association is doing such a great job, according to the

ruling political party, they are awarded multiple times for best association of Okkiyam Thoraipakkam, figure 12. The women on the award is the leader of the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK). The person holding the award is mister Parthiban, who is the general secretary of the association.

Sri Sai Nagar House Owners Association consists of 200 members, whereas 1 member is a household. These members are scattered throughout Sai Nagar. The main body of the association consists of 7 people and 15 more people who handle the administration. Their main goal is to maintain a good environment to live in. They fight the plans of the government to build a sewage treatment plant throughout strikes and legal cases. In collaboration with the government, the SSNHOA is planning to restructure the storm water drains and to construct dams to protect the area against backwaters.

S

N

According to the founder, the Selvaganapathi Nagar Residential Welfare Association (SNRWA) was founded in October 2015 (figure 13), whereas other people, residents of the neighborhood stated that it was founded after the floods of December 2015. According to the founder and president of the association the association was founded because there are a lot of problems in Selvaganapathi Nagar concerning water supply, sewage systems and electricity which need to be solved by the government. The neighborhood figured that when they act as a collective towards the government they would be better heard than when they act as individuals.

FIGURE 12 - MISTER PARTHIBAN, GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE SSNWA, HOLDING AN AWARD. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELD WORK

22

Selvaganapathi Nagar is divided in two areas, the Selvaganapathi Avenue, which is east Selvaganapathi Nagar, and the Selvaganapathi Nagar extension street, which is west Selvaganapathi Nagar. Those two areas are divided by a grassland. In Selvaganapathi Avenue the SNRWA is ´active´. In the Selvaganapathi Nagar Extension Street, figure 14, an association was founded at the time I was doing my research (they had no knowledge about my presence when founding the association). They founded the association because they thought that the SNRWA did not do anything for the people of Selvaganapathi Nagar. Therefore, due to lack of active work of the SNRWA they began their own association on 10-4-2016. They only have members from the Selvaganapathi Nagar extension street. 30 households joined the association and they have 19 active members. They will get together ones a week, so far they have had 1 meeting. They discuss how they will approach politicians to get help for the basic facilities their

neighborhood lacks. They want the government to provide them with paved roads, drainage system and water facilities. Also the dump yard that is basically in their backyard needs to go away.

Observation made clear that the Sai Nagar neighborhood was better organized than the Selvaganapathi Nagar neighborhood.

The associations in Sai Nagar were also older than the associations in Selvaganapathi Nagar. FIGURE 13 – SELVAGANAPATHI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL WELFARE

ASSOCIATION. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELDWORK

FIGURE 14 – SELVAGANAPTHI NAGAR EXTENTION ASSOCIATION. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELD WORK

23

F

LOOD

S

TAGES

In this chapter the three flood stages with the corresponding concepts will be discussed. This to create a good overview of the possible prevention measures, coping mechanisms and recovery mechanisms.

B

;

Prevention measures can be practical or theoretical form. Theoretical flood prevention can be seen as everything that is not practical, such as knowledge and other non-practical elements. With adding knowledge about floods and why floods happen people can better prevent a flood from interrupting their daily life. When people have more knowledge about floods they can better anticipate how they will act when there is a heavy rainfall. Practical prevention measures can be putting valuable items on higher surface to prevent them from getting wet. To prevent the water from entering the house people used sandbags and other items. Other prevention measures are more on a bigger scale than only households. On neighborhood scale an organization can be useful as prevention measure because an organization can help with implementing prevention measures such as implementing a sewage system and a drainage system.

D

;

Adaptation and coping refer to the ability of society to respond to threats using available skills and resources. The difference between adaptation and coping is the timescale. Coping can be seen as an immediate hazard-related response to disaster. Whereas adaptation a long-term transformation of measures describes who substantially will decrease risk or vulnerability (Scheuer, Haase & Meyer, 2011). Adaptation will be discussed in the recovery section.

There are multiple dimensions within coping capacity. In this research the following will be discussed; physical, social and economic (Joerin, Shaw, Takeuchi & Krishnamurthy, 2012). People need to cope with a natural disaster at the time of the disaster. In time of the floods the water stood in people their houses for several days. They needed to act fast to cope with the situation. They could have left their houses and vacated to a place which was not affected by the floods. They could have booked a hotel room for the time the water stagnated in their houses. When living on the ground floor having upstairs neighbors, downstairs household could live with their upstairs neighbors. Some people would of have helped each other in time of need. Others sought need because they were unable to handle the situation.

A

;

Recovery and adaptation are closely related. When people try to recover from a disaster they need to adapt to a new situation. People can recover in different ways from a disaster.

24

The way they recover depends on multiple characteristics of the households and the neighborhood. It depends on how largely they have been affected by the flood. The way they have been affected has also impact on the recovery of a household. Different households have different possibilities to recover from a natural disaster. Economic welfare has a large influence on the possibilities to recover from a natural disaster. Social connections are important for the recovery of households. When you have good connections with people they can help you.

25

D

ISASTER MANAGEMENT PER NEIGHBORHOOD

This chapter will provide the results of both neighborhoods in three paragraphs per neighborhood. The impact of the flood differs per neighborhood because both neighborhoods differ. Because the impact of the flood is determined by three variables, the variables will first be dealt with. Of each variable I mentioned above, socioeconomic status, neighborhood characteristics and level of organization, I will give the information about the kind of impact it has on three different stages I mentioned in the chapter ‘Flood stages’, before, during and after the flood. These results will be given per neighborhood separately. Thereafter the results will be compared in the next chapter.

S

N

The socioeconomic status (SES) in Sai Nagar is middle to high. This means that people living in Sai Nagar earn a middle to high income, live in a proper neighborhood with paved roads and closed sewage systems and are well educated. Because of their good socioeconomic status they can afford living in Sai Nagar, which is a wealthy neighborhood. This neighborhood has good neighborhood characteristics. In Sai Nagar are two associations which are well organized. Most of the people acknowledge the associations and know what they do. Figure 15 and 16 show the difference between the flood situation and the normal situation.

FIGURE 15 – SAI NAGAR PARK AFTER THE FLOOD. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELD WORK

FIGUUR 16 - SAI NAGAR PARK DURING THE FLOOD. SOURCE: OMR SRI SAI NAGAR MAKKAL SANGAM FACEBOOK PAGE.

26

P

The SES of households has influence on how they handled and could handle the flood situation. My research showed that information had a big influence on how people implemented prevention measures. Even though the people I spoke with in Sai Nagar were well educated, nobody expected that the flood would be as heavy as it was. Some people told me that they were not properly warned by the government, that they had never experienced a flood like this before and did not think that this could happen. Therefore, all the conducted prevention measures were at the moment people saw water coming into their houses. Eight out of sixteen households I spoke with had a whole house, so they could stash their valuable items in the upper floor(s). One household living in the upper floor did help their down stair neighbors with safeguarding their valuable belongings in the upstairs house. The six households who lived downstairs had different stories. One person lived in the higher part of Sai Nagar and therefore the water entered the house till their knees. They managed to put every valuable item higher than their knee-height to protect it from the water. Other households who lived in the ground floor live in the lower part of Sai Nagar where the water stagnated longer and higher. Household number 5, see figure 17, was a poor household who lived in a house which was 1 floor high and did not have the facilities to put their valuable items on a high surface. This can be seen as a physical characteristic of the house, which lacks storing space. The lack of storing space is caused by the SES which is very low of household number 5. Household number 16 had the same problem concerning storing facilities, even though they had upstairs neighbors. The problem here was that the people of household 16 were in panic when the flood came and they did not think about their belongings, only about their life. Household number 8 lost all their belongings including motors because they lived on the ground floor.

27 FIGUUR 17 - SAI NAGAR RESPONDENTS HOUSEHOLDS, SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, EDITED BY HUUB SARIS.

Physical prevention measures implemented in Sai Nagar were mostly the high foundation of the house which prevented the water from entering the house. This prevention measure failed most of the times because the foundations were too low to prevent the water from entering the house. Some respondents told me that they have a stock of food were they can live from with their whole household for a month. This is not because they know that a flood can happen and they might need the food. It is because buying large quantities is cheaper than buying multiple times in small quantities.

The OMR Sri Sai Nagar Makkal Sangam, also known as the Sai Nagar Welfare association, did inform the people from Sai Nagar that there will be a flood and they need to prepare for it. A lot of people did not believe that the flood will be as heavy as it would become eventually. Every year there is a flood of 2 feet in the low laying area of Sai Nagar, so they thought it is going to be the same as every year. The prevention measure of informing the people did not help. Although the OMR Sri Sai Nagar Makkal Sangam stated that they informed the people of Sai Nagar, their Facebook page only reports what the association did for the community.

28

C

The flood was heavier than people expected and most of the prevention measures failed. The water in the west side of Sai Nagar stagnated for one week at 7 to 8 feet. Because the water came very quickly and without announcement from the government, residents of Sai Nagar did not have time to implement prevention measures.

Sai Nagar residents coped differently with the flood, this was due to the heaviness of the flood and the different resources people had. The residents with a lower SES lived mostly in the lower side of Sai Nagar, because the houses are cheaper and more flood prone. The residents living in the lower area of Sai Nagar with a middle to high SES were mostly able to evacuate from their house. They had the resources to live somewhere else for a while. These resources could be family, friends, second houses, or money to live in a hotel for a week. The only households who stayed during the floods and did not have the opportunity to evacuate the most flood prone area are household 12 and 14. Household 12 did not have anywhere to go. Household 14 could not leave the house because there were 2 persons who were so old that they could not walk through the water to a safer place. One household who stayed had a whole house and could evacuate to a higher floor. The other 4 households who stayed in Sai Nagar and could cope with the flood in their own houses lived in the less affected area, these were households 1, 2, 3 and 11.

One household who evacuated did have a whole house and lived in the less affected area of Sai Nagar, but was very wealthy and left their house to live in one of the father’s house, even though there was an opportunity to live upstairs. The other households who evacuated lived in the area which was the heaviest affected by the flood. The water level was very high and the water stagnated for a week. These people had different destinations to evacuate to. This fore mostly depended on their SES. People with a high SES do have the resources such as money and friends with the same SES who have houses were they could stay. The households with a high SES went to family, friends or to a hotel. The households with a lower SES went to schools, banks or other places where there were evacuation camps. These schools and banks provided space to stay dry. These were places were the volunteers and government easily could reach to deliver food and other relief products. Due to the fact that there are two well-functioning associations in Sai Nagar, people were rescued out of their houses by boats provided by the associations, figure 18. The food trucks that the government and volunteers from Bangalore provided could not go into the neighborhood because the neighborhood was flooded. Therefore the association provided boats to function as a distributional tool to get the relief products from the trucks on the main road (200 feet road) to the people who were stuck in their houses. This help from the associations did help a lot by improving the coping capacity of households.

29 FIGURE 18 – RESCUE AND DISTRIBUTION OPERATION. SOURCE: OMR SRI SAI NAGAR MAKKAL SANGAM FACEBOOK PAGE.

30

R

After the water was gone and people could re-enter their houses or come downstairs they found that their belongings were damaged or flooded away. Fridges, sofa’s, televisions, grinders, mixers and sometimes even cars and bikes were damaged or lost in the flood. Houses needed to be cleaned because the floodwater was mixed with the sewage water which caused a terrible smell and stains on the floor and walls. Insects and snakes entered the houses during the flood which made it dangerous to clean the houses. The recovery process was according to the respondents hard. The households who had stored their valuable items in the ground floor area lost a lot and needed to spend a lot to buy everything back. People with a high SES could replace everything with their own money, or with money from relatives without interest. Households who did not have a high SES could not easily buy back their belongings after losing it during the floods, because they do not have the economic capital. They could not lend money from their relatives because they were also

from a low SES.

The associations of Sai Nagar provided cleaning powder and blankets after the flood. Not everyone got the cleaning powder or bedsheets according to my interviews with people from Sai Nagar. The aid from the government was lacking according to the respondents. The government would give 5000 rupees (which is 66,36 euros) per household if they were affected by the flood. Six people did get the full amount of 5000 rupees, one household got 4500 and do not know why they got 500 less. Seven people did not get anything, one household did not apply for the relief fund because they do not accept any help from the government, this because they saw the relief fund as something for the poor people. A respondent who did not receive the relief fund answered the question: “Why do you think you did not receive the relief fund of 5000 rupees?” with the following: “The government only cares about their own people”,

referring to the people who vote for the ruling political party ADMK. Even though some people got the relief fund, nobody found it sufficient to cover up the losses. Some households lost 1 to 2 lakh rupees (one lakh is 100.000), some respondents lost 3 to 5 lakh rupees. These households who lost 3 to 5 lakh rupees, were the households who lost cars and motorbikes. After the water was gone for 2 days, the Sri Sai Nagar Welfare Association set up a medical camp, figure 19. The general secretary’s friend,

a doctor, who lived outside of Chennai came to help and set up a medical camp for the people who did become ill during the flood.

FIGURE 19 – MEDICAL CAMP SAI NAGAR, SOURCE: OMR SRI SAI NAGAR MAKKAL SANGAM FACEBOOK PAGE.

31

Recovery also includes prevention of a new disaster, when recovering with a developmental approach (Berke, Kartez & Wenger, 2008). This kind of recovery was not necessary according to the respondents. A flood like this was not going to happen any time soon, so implementing prevention measures for the next flood was not necessary, according to the respondents. Because the neighborhood lies in a flood prone area, this does not stop people from migrating to the neighborhood. Due to the devaluation of the land price companies and private people buy the land and build houses. Prevention measures are taken by the companies and private owners in the form of high foundation levels, such as you can see in figure 20.

FIGURE 20 - FOUNDATION OF A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELD WORK

S

N

The SES in Selvaganapathi Nagar is low, people earn little amounts of money, some are educated and the neighborhood is not well maintained. In the neighborhood is no closed sewage system, some roads are paved and it is near the Perungudi Dump Yard. In Selvaganapathi Nagar east there is one association, namely the Selvaganapathi Nagar Residential Welfare Association. The president of this association states that the association was founded before the flood happened, according to lot of respondents the association was founded after the flood. In Selvaganapathi Nagar west there also is an association, as mentioned before. The association in east Selvaganapathi Nagar is not very active according to the respondents. Whereas the association in west Selvaganapathi Nagar is new, it was not there before the flood. Figure 21 shows the locations of the respondents.

32 FIGUUR 21 - SELVAGANAPATHI NAGAR RESPONDENTS HOUSEHOLDS, SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, EDITED BY HUUB SARIS.

P

The SES of Selvaganapathi Nagar is low according to my observations and interviews with the people of Selvaganapathi Nagar. Due to the low SES they are limited in their resources, this causes a limitation in the amount and kind of prevention measures taken. I found that people knew very well why the flood happened, but they did not know at the time this flood would be this heavy. Because they did not foresee the flood and its impetuosity, and were not warned by the government or other authorities, they did not implement prevention measures beforehand. Some households did put sandbags in front of their house to prevent the water from entering the house. They also put their valuable items on higher surfaces, when possible. The nine households who lived downstairs did not have high storage places in their house, so they put their valuable items on the bed and sofa. The water raised much higher than the bed or the sofa, so the prevention measure was not effective. There was one household who had a stairwell to their terrace on the roof, where they stored their valuable items when the water came. The household with the terrace made a roof of plastic they

33

found on the streets and put their items under the improvised roof. The six households who had a whole house did not lose much because they could store their valuable items upstairs.

C

During the flood the water came into people their houses by force. Some respondent even described it as heavy as the tsunami of 2004. Because the water came by such a force it was difficult to implement prevention measures, without any time. During the flood all the households who had a whole house stayed in the upstairs. One households who had a downstairs stayed. This households did have a terrace on the roof were they build a roof with plastic garbage were they would take shelter. Seven out of fifteen households I interviewed stayed during the floods in their houses. One household of the seven that stayed split up. The wife and kids went out to family in an unaffected area of Chennai, whereas the husband stayed in the upper floor of the house to protect their belongings. This household was afraid that they would get robbed when they left the house unguarded for a long time. Of the nine households who left their houses, five of them went to relatives. Only one went to an unaffected area, this household had a little bit better SES than the other households in Selvaganapathi Nagar and was located on the edge of Selvaganapathi Nagar, next to Sai Nagar. The other four households went to relatives inside of Selvaganapathi Nagar. Three households went to their neighbor’s houses and one household went to their father’s house who had an upstairs. One household went to a private school nearby the Corporation Road (main road). Two households went to a company building were people could stay during the flood. One household was in a special situation, they were just preparing to move to another house in Selvaganapathi Nagar when the flood struck. The house owner told them that they could stay in one of his other houses in an unaffected area. So they went there and stayed for 2 months.

The households who stayed in their houses during the flood did not experience any help from the government. They got some help from volunteers and some help from the associations of Sai Nagar. This help consisted of food, blankets, water, clothes and some medicine. One respondent who had a whole house told her neighbors, who only have a downstairs, to stay at her house. She was able to provide food for herself and her neighbors because she shifted her food upstairs when she saw the water coming. In total there were 20 people in one house during the floods. She got bread once from someone unknown she said. During the flood no help came for the area next to the grassland. Her son, like many other, walked through the water to the nearest main road to get food from the volunteers who were situated at the main roads ‘200 Feet Road’ and ‘Corporation Road’.

During the flood there was little help from outside helping Selvaganapathi Nagar people. Two out of fifteen households experienced help from outside of the neighborhood. This help was according to the respondents provided by volunteers and people from Sai Nagar. One of these two respondents told me that the help from the government only was given to people who support the ruling party ADMK. Households with only a downstairs needed to evacuate

34

on their own without any support. The households who needed to go to the private school and companies needed to walk to the main road in the night and early morning. Having reached the school and the companies the three households stated that there was food and water supplied by volunteers and the government, but it was not sufficient. According to one respondent who stayed in the house during the flood was the help that was provided only for the wealthy people, because “they have ‘good connections’” (Respondent Selvaganapahti Nagar, interview 8).

In Selvaganapathi Nagar west there was a man, aged mid-twenties, who helped his neighborhood a lot during the flood, according to other people. This man told me that he helped the old and the young with providing food, because they were not able to get any from the main road by themselves. Several days he saw a boat at the beginning of their neighborhood, 300 meter from where most people lived. The boat would not enter Selvaganapahti Nagar, so he needed to collect the food from the boat by walking and swimming through the water. Due to the dump yard next to the neighborhood the water stagnated for a week. This water became very filthy when it mixed with the open sewage system and the waste of the dump yard. During the flood snakes and insects were in the water and inside people their houses. People would get sick because everything was wet and filthy.

R

When the water reduced after 4 or 5 days, the help from outside increased. Six respondents told me that when the water was gone the government and volunteers gave food, clothes, milk, medical supplies and bedsheets. Because the houses were filthy, people needed to clean their houses. Some people got cleaning powder from the government or volunteers. The flood relief fund, promised by the government, was not given to any of the respondents. The president from the inactive association, the Selvaganapahti Nagar Residential Welfare Association, said that he had collected every form and handed them to the government. He did this because he knew some people in the government and hoped the process would be quicker. He stated that he tried two times, but failed. Other respondents accuse the president of the association of holding back the relief fund for himself. I cannot say with certainty, but I also have my doubts of the fairness of the president of the Selvaganapathi Nagar Residential Welfare Association. The suspicion is generated by the false information the president gave and the suspicious people in the neighborhood itself. The president said that he started the association before the flood happened, all the other respondents told me that the association was founded after the flood. The president was a retired police man who had his connections in the government he stated himself. He told the people from his neighborhood that when they handed in their relief fund forms (the forms which were necessary to claim the flood relief fund) he would give it to people inside the government who he knew and the people would get their money faster and easier. Because he lied about certain things of his association and was not very clear about the reason he started his

35

association I became suspicious. Other respondents stated that the retired police man and president of the Selvaganapathi Nagar Residential Welfare Association started his association only for his own benefits. Therefore I believe that the retired police man saw a business opportunity in the flood disaster and used this to make money at the expense of the poor people. Two out of fifteen respondents did not work, one was studying and the other one was retired and now president of the Selvaganapathi Nagar Residential Welfare Association. Two respondents own a small store, they lost all their supply worth of 30.000 rupees per store. Seven households lost between the 2500 and 6000 rupees worth of income. This was due to the fact they are daily wage laborers and get paid per day. Three of the respondents did not lose any income because they have monthly wages. One respondent lost her job as a servant in three houses. All three households migrated to another place after the flood, she did not get any new job yet. The respondents in Selvaganapathi Nagar do have a low SES and do not have the economic capital to buy back their lost items. Therefore almost every respondent is lending money from moneylenders. They cannot lend money from banks and do not have the friends or family with money which they can lend out for a while. The moneylenders lend the people money with a very high interest, this can easily be an interest of

36% per year. To prevent the next flood from happening some people are thinking about moving to a non-flood prone area. Some people want to elevate the foundation of the house or build a roof on their terrace so that they would have an upstairs to flee to when a next flood would present itself. These are all plans which they cannot implement because of the lack of money. One small store owner did elevate his doorstep with 20cm to prevent the water from entering his shop the next

time, figure 22. This may look silly because the water was 1,50 meters high, but each year this area floods a little, this year’s flood was extreme. For the yearly small floods this prevention measure can be a sufficient one.

FIGURE 22 - ELEVATED DOORSTEP OF SMALL STORE. SOURCE: AUTHORS FIELD WORK