See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290073449

Vulnerability Mapping for Water Stress in Kerala

Article · August 2014

DOI: 10.3233/RED-120111

CITATION READS
1 1,143

4 authors:

Indira Devi Sunil Mukundan

Kerala Agricultural University,Thrissur,India Kerala Agricultural University
39 PUBLICATIONS   365 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sebin Sara Seenath Peedikakandi

Mangalayatan University Kerala Agricultural University Thrissur
2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    4 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Determinants ans Dynamics of lease land farming in Kerala: A multi-dimensional analysis View project

Organic Farming in Kerala: Field practices, economics and strategies for future View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sebin Sara on 14 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vulnerability Mapping for Water Stress in Kerala
P Indira Devia, K M Sunilb, Sebin Sara Solomonc, and P Seenathd

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

Introduction
Researchers on global water scarcity analysis concluded that a large share of
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

the world population—nearly two-thirds—will be affected by water scarcity over

the next several decades (Shiklomanov 1991; Raskin et al.
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

Introduction 1997; Alcamo et al. 1997; Seckler et al. 2003 ; Vorosmarty

www.IndianJournals.com

Status of Water Resources of Kerala et al. 2000; Wallace 2000; Wallace and Gregory 2002). The
Vulnerability: The Meaning and Concept most obvious conclusion from these analyses is that water
Vulnerability Assessment: The Methodology will be scarce in areas with low rainfall and relatively high
Vulnerability to Water Scarcity population density. Many countries in the arid areas of the
Conclusion world, particularly Central and West Asia and North Africa,
References are already close to, or below the 1,000 m3/capita/year
threshold and therefore, this is the part of the world that is
most definitely water scarce. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC [2007]) points out that water impacts due to climate change are key for
all sectors and regions, resulting in decreasing water availability and increased
drought in mid- and low-latitudes exposing hundreds and millions of people
to increased water stress. As the human demand for water stress increases and
competition among water-utilizing sectors intensifies, water scarcity becomes
apparent in many forms. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC points
out that freshwater availability in Asia is projected to decrease due to climate
change. By the middle of the 21st century, annual average river runoff and water
availability projected to decrease by 10–30 per cent, relative to 1900–70 over
some dry regions in the mid-latitudes and dry tropics. Further, water availability
is projected to be lower for regions supplied by water from glaciers and snow
(IPCC 2007).

a
Professor (Ag. Economics) & Director, Centre of Excellence in Environmental
Economics, Kerala Agricultural University
b
Associate Professor (Ag. Meteorology), Academy for Climate Change
Adaptation Education and Research, Kerala Agricultural University
c
Research Associate, Centre for Excellence in Environmental Economics,
Kerala Agricultural University
d
PhD Scholar, Centre of Excellence in Environmental Economics, Kerala
Agricultural University
 42 P Indira Devi, K M Sunil, Sebin Sara Solomon, and P Seenath

The social impact of water scarcity is largely status. Vulnerability indices can, in principle,
measured by the vulnerability of the system inform decision-making regarding prioritization
towards the condition of scarcity. Several of adaptation funding and determining fair
scholars have attempted to holistically assess allocations for adaptation assistance.
the vulnerability of communities or farming
systems to climate change through a variety Status of Water Resources of
of approaches (Luers et al. 2003; Turner et al. Kerala
2003; Fraser 2007; Simelton et al. 2009). A Kerala, located in the high rainfall region,
combination of factors may increase vulnerability receives an average annual rainfall of about
or enhance resilience to stress (the capacity to 3,000 mm, but with high variability. The demand
cope or respond to stress in different ways). for water in Kerala is mainly for drinking,
Within the context of climate studies, the most agriculture, power generation, and aquaculture
vulnerable are considered to be those who are as well as for prevention of salt-water intrusion.
most exposed to perturbations, who possess a Currently, 71 per cent is used for irrigation,
limited capacity for adaptation, and who are least 18 per cent for domestic use, and the rest is for
resilient to recovery (Bohle et al. 1994). Indeed, other purposes.
vulnerability is greatly influenced by the degree The trend in monsoon and annual rainfall is
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

of development and socio-economic status of that of declining nature for the past 60 years
a particular group or community (Ribot et al. (Rao et al. 2008). The number of droughts
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

1996). Various factors shape the differences increased from that in 1961–70 to 1991–2000.
www.IndianJournals.com

in vulnerability of individuals or groups: (Rao et al. 2009). Kerala is one of the states
entitlements, personal heterogeneity, variations with lowest per capita water availability among
in social obligations, environmental location, the Indian states. The per capita availability
livelihood diversification strategies, support is only 9,450 litres/day (L/day) of rainwater,
networks, empowerment or power relations, 1,022 L/day of surface water, and 590 L/day of
access to knowledge, and information technology groundwater. Thus the per capita availability is
(Noronha 2003). 11,062 L/day (Devi 2011). The water availability
In addition to the mitigation of climate has shown a steady decline over the years
change, adaptation (to climate change) is also since 1901.
necessary in order to avoid the unacceptable In Kerala the water demand in the domestic
impacts of anthropogenic climate change sector has shown a higher growth rate than that
(IPCC 2007). Management of the potential risks of the population. The traditional cultural habit of
of climate change necessitates scientific estimates very high consumptive use of water, high literacy
of the level of potential damage, accommodating rate, and health care awareness (high Human
the adaptive mechanisms of the communities. Development Index) has pushed up the demand
The resource which are scarce, are to be allocated for quality water. Changes in the traditional
spatially and sectorally, considering the relative joint-family system in homesteads with own
vulnerability status. open wells/ ponds to nuclear families in urban
This article addresses how science- and centers with no open water harvest structures,
society-based indicators of vulnerability, to are increasing the pressure on the public supply
climate change and adaptability, can inform system. These factors predict a faster growth rate
the prioritization of adaptation assistance from in demand in the domestic sector.
the scarce resources. Indices of vulnerability to The ecologically-sensitive population in
climate change include, observed data on socio- the state performs a watch dog function in the
economic, environmental, agronomic, and other industrial sector and exerts great pressure on the
factors. Based on this, the districts of Kerala are pollution management system of these industries.
mapped according to their relative vulnerability Therefore, the industrial demand for water may

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 Vulnerability Mapping for Water Stress in Kerala 43

also be on the rise. Further, the widening of may not happen in the future. It is the inability of
service sector amenities in the state is mostly at individual and social groupings to respond to,
the expense of large tracts of paddy lands which cope with, recover from, or adapt to any external
function as natural bodies of water conservation. stress placed on their livelihood and well-being
Land-use changes in favour of industries and (Kelly and Adger 2000). The basic linkage between
service sectors thus limit the water conservation social, economic, and political situations and
level substantially, while they cause an increase trends, and the capacity to react to environmental
in the demand. Thus, the forces of supply and stress will be there in all time scales.
demand are in opposing positions. Going by
the current signals of climate change, land-use Vulnerability Assessment:
changes, social behaviour, and demographic The Methodology
pressures, the supply-demand gap may be wider The vulnerability assessment can be done for a
and the impact of water scarcity more severe specific system (farming systems, geographical
and complex. locations), population (low income, coastal) for
exposure to different types of climatic shocks,
Vulnerability: The Meaning climate change, and extremes (temperature,
and Concept rainfall, sea level rise) on a spatial and temporal
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

According to the Webster’s dictionary, the plane. Further, the approach towards the
term ‘vulnerability’ implies the quality or state concept varies, depending upon the way one
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

of having little resistance to some outside treats the concept. Different authors have
www.IndianJournals.com

agent. The term is used in almost all the defined vulnerability contingent upon their
disciplines of knowledge, in different policy approach of assessment of vulnerability as the
contexts and systems. The ordinary use of the focal, starting or end point. The starting point
word vulnerability refers to the capacity to be approach considers vulnerability as the state
wounded, i.e., the degree to which a system is that exists in a system, before it encounters a
likely to experience harm due to exposure to hazardous event (Kelly and Adger 2000; Brooks
a hazard (Turner et al. 2003). Vulnerability is 2003) whereas the end point approach considers
conceptualized in different ways by scholars from vulnerability as the residue of sequence that
different knowledge domains, and even within begins with projection of future emission leading
the same domain. For instance, natural scientists to climate change impact, moving through the
and engineers tend to apply the term in a development of climate scenarios, and finally
descriptive manner whereas social scientists tend identifying adaptation strategies (O’Brien et al.
to use it in the context of a specific explanatory 2004a). This particular approach emphasises on
model (O’Brien et al. 2004a; Gow 2005). the physical dimension of vulnerability and has
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate played a useful role in increasing the scientific
Change (IPCC), has defined vulnerability as understanding of the climate-sensitive system,
the degree to which a system is susceptible for mitigating the impacts, by conforming to the
to, or unable to cope with adverse effects of required specifications (Gbetibouo and
climate change including climate variability and Ringler 2009).
extremes. Vulnerability is a function of character, Various authors have attempted to assess
magnitude, and rate of climate change, exposure vulnerability in multiple contexts employing
to climate change stimuli, and its ability to cope different analytical tools. The type of stress
with their adverse effects (IPCC 2007). factor and nature of the system determines the
Vulnerability of any individual or social grouping selection of analytical framework, including
to some particular form of natural hazard is selection of explanatory variables (O’Brien
determined by their existent state of capacity to et al. 2004b; Patnaik and Narayanan 2005;
respond to that hazard, rather than what may or Gbetibouo and Ringler 2009; Swain and Swain

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 44 P Indira Devi, K M Sunil, Sebin Sara Solomon, and P Seenath

2011; Hiremath and Shiyani 2013). Gbetibouo be influenced by social, economic, ecological,
and Ringler (2009) in their study detail two management and technological attributes,
main distinct epistemological approaches to depending upon the stress factors as well as
the ‘starting point’ approach and the ‘end point’ the impeded aspect. For instance, the
approach. The former is built upon the concept sensitivity to water stress may be influenced
of potential factors and effects contributing to by a set of agronomic, geological, and socio-
the vulnerability. The endpoint approach, on economic factors.
the other hand, is more predictive, based on the Adaptive capacity refers to the potential or
potential impacts and adaptation strategies. The capability of a system to adjust to climate change,
authors have furnished the major differences including, climate variability and extremes, so as
between the two approaches in a detailed way. to moderate potential damages, take advantage
However, the more recent approaches towards of opportunities, or cope with consequences
vulnerability assessment follow an integrated (Smit and Pilifosova 2001). As the name suggests,
pattern. As adopted by a lot of previous studies adaptive capacity is the capability of a system to
(IPCC 2001; TERI 2003; Gbetibouo and Ringler adapt to impacts of climate change.
2009), vulnerability in this study is taken as a The effect of exposure and sensitivity on
function of three components viz., exposure, vulnerability, in general, is direct while that of
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. adaptive capacity is inverse. In other words,

The component of exposure corresponds to the greater the exposure or sensitivity, the
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

the state of having no protection from something greater is the vulnerability. Therefore, reducing
www.IndianJournals.com

harmful, that is, the factor/s (its magnitude and/ vulnerability would involve reducing exposure
or frequency) that causes stress on the system. through specific measures or increasing
In climate change studies, the weather variables adaptive capacity.
such as precipitation, temperature, frequency We basically follow the approach suggested
of weather extremes, and the like are taken by Gbetibouo and Ringler (2009), with
into account to assess the level of exposure. modifications to suit the conditions. This
It may be represented as either long-term basically is an indicator-(index) based method.
changes in climatic conditions, or by changes Index numbers are statistical devices designed
in climate variability, including the magnitude to measure the relative change in the level
and frequency of extreme events (IPCC 2001). of a phenomenon with respect to time or
There are two main elements to consider in geographical location. Vulnerability indices
exposure—things that can be affected by climate measure the relative position of regions with
change (population, resources, property, and so respect to vulnerability in spatial or temporal
on) and the change in climate itself (sea level rise, dimensions. This approach of vulnerability
precipitation, temperature changes, and so on). analysis is common, owing to its ability to
Sensitivity refers to the degree to which contain interactive effects of different variables.
a system is modified or affected by internal/ The vulnerability index to water scarcity, for
external disturbances or a set of disturbances different districts of Kerala, is developed based
(Gallopin 2003). It is the degree to which a on various socio-economic, climatic, agronomic,
system will be affected by or responsive to climate and biophysical factors (secondary data), for two
stimuli (Smit et al. 2001). It is the responsiveness periods, 2000–01 and 2010–11. The process of
of the system to the exposure. Sensitivity is construction of vulnerability index has different
basically the biophysical effect of climate change, steps. A comprehensive list of all potential
but it is also influenced by socio-economic variables, which can be considered for the study,
changes. For example, an agricultural system is was prepared through a review of literature and
more sensitive to water scarcity, if it is irrigated. discussion among the research team and other
The level of sensitivity or responsiveness may scientists.

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 Vulnerability Mapping for Water Stress in Kerala 45

However, this study is based on 19 variables

which were selected based on availability of
data at two points of time. Identified variables
were segregated under three groups as those
Where, v is the index for the jth indicator, b is
under exposure, sensitivity, and adaptation. The
the weight of first Principal Component, a is
variables were intrinsically interactive and either
the observed value of indicator, x is the mean
bio-physical or socio-economic in nature. Table
value of the indicator, and s is the standard
1 explains the variables, its rationality, and the
deviation of the indicator. From our conceptual
hypothesized effect on vulnerability index.
framework, we see that the vulnerability of a
Multivariate technique of Principal
given system largely depends on its exposure and
Component Analysis (PCA) is employed to
sensitivity, which when combined provides the
assign relative weights. PCA is a technique for
potential impact and the potential for effectively
extracting, from a set of variables, those few
coping with the impacts and associated risks.
orthogonal linear combinations of variables
Vulnerability may be formulated mathematically
that capture the common information most
as follows:
successfully. The first principal component
V = f (I – AC), where I is (Exposure Index +
of a set of variables is the linear index of all
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

Sensitivity Index)
the variables that capture the largest amount
AC is Adaptation Capacity Index
of information common to all the variables.
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

The districts are ranked based on overall

(Gbetibouo and Ringler 2009). The values
www.IndianJournals.com

vulnerability index, exposure index, sensitivity

of indicators for each district is estimated by
index, and adaptation capacity index.
multiplying the original variable values with
weights taken through PCA analysis using
the formula
Table 1: The variables in the study and its hypothesized effect on vulnerability
Sl. Variable Rationale/ explanation Source of Data/Method of Hypothesized relation
No. estimation on the vulnerability
1. Annual rainfall/ Reflects availability of water Meteorological Department of Inverse
Precipitation India (IMD)
Exposure 2. Maximum temperature/ Determine the water loss due to Meteorological Department of Direct
year evapo-transpiration as well as the India (IMD)
demand for water
1. Percentage of total Reflects the dependence on Economic Review, Government Direct
cropped area to total agriculture and allied sector which of Kerala
geographical area is highly dependent on water
2. Cropping Diversity Index Diversity indicates diversification Estimated from the cropping Direct
of crops which helps in reducing pattern statistics, Economic
the risk of loss than growing a Review, Government of Kerala
Sensitivity single crop
3. Cropping Intensity Indicates the quantum of water Gross cropped area/Net area Direct
requirement sown(Economic Review,
Government of Kerala)
4. Percentage of gross Reflects the water requirement Economic Review, Government Direct
irrigated area to gross of Kerala
cropped area

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 46 Indira Devi, P, Sunil K M, Sebin Sara Solomon, and Seenath P

5. Total groundwater draft Reflects quantity of water Central Ground Water Board Direct
consumed
6. Net ground water status Indicates the water availability Central Ground Water Board Inverse
7. Area under HYV (paddy) Higher water requirement/ high Agricultural census (Economic Direct
level of input use and hence more Review, Government of Kerala)
sensitive
8. Population density Determines the quantum of water Census data, Direct
requirement Official website of Kerala state
9. Percentage of small and Small and marginal farmers have Agricultural census Direct
marginal holdings to total limited access to resources and
holdings their affordability to mitigation
practices
10. Crop loan Credit repayment obligation Economic Review, Government Direct
makes the farming system of Kerala
sensitive to adverse conditions
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

11. Percentage of income Reflects the dependence on Economic Review, Government Direct
from agriculture and agriculture and allied sector which of Kerala
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

allied sector is highly dependent on water

www.IndianJournals.com

12. Livestock population High water requirement and Economic Review, Government Direct
hence makes the system sensitive of Kerala
1. Per capita income influences the affordability of Economic Review/ Inverse
mitigation practices and risk Census data/
bearing capacity Official website of Kerala state
2. Literacy rate Influences awareness about Economic Review/ Inverse
vulnerability, mitigation strategies Census data
and also accessibility to these Official website of Kerala state
3. Investment credit in Investment credit is primarily for Economic Review, Government Inverse
Adaptation agriculture capital formation in agriculture of Kerala
Capacity (soil and water conservation )
which facilitates adaptive capacity
4. Percentage of BPL families BPL families have limited access to BPL Census, Ministry of Rural Direct
resources and limited affordability Development, GoI.
to mitigation practices
5. Percentage of actual Forest has ecosystem service Forest Survey of India Inverse
forest cover to total function especially rainfall, water
geographical area recharge, and so on
Source: Provided by the authors.

Vulnerability to Water Scarcity facilitate to tide it over. At the same time, there
are indications of adaptation and mitigation
The declining water resources in Kerala
prospects too, which also varies across regions
coupled with increasing demand pull forces
(here districts). The relative strength of these
lead to a condition of severe water scarcity.
factors decides the net effect, i.e., to what extent
Some characteristics of the system make it
is a system vulnerable to water stress.
highly sensitive to such a situation while others

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 Vulnerability Mapping for Water Stress in Kerala 47

So, the construction of the vulnerability index (exposure) alone. The district was highly sensitive
is to be loaded by the relative weights of each of due to higher percentage of small and marginal
the variables that contribute both positively and farm holdings (2nd), higher livestock population
negatively. The weights attached to each variable, (3rd), higher ground water draft (2nd), and
as derived through the PCA, is furnished in highest percentage of area under irrigation
Table 2. The first principal components could (1st). The distribution of crop loan, an amount
explain 25.9 per cent and 31.72 per cent of `417.10 lakhs, was also the highest while the
variability in the data for the year 2000–01 and average crop loan distribution for all the other
2010–11, respectively. So, the six components districts were only `233.23 lakhs.
extracted, could cumulatively explain 90 per cent The district was in the second position a
and 82 per cent of the variation, respectively. decade ago, with an index of 118.45 (Table 4).
For the year 2000–01, the highest weight was During the period, there was an increase in
for the sensitivity variable population density cropped area (69 per cent), cropping intensity
(27.76), followed by livestock population (26.05), (22 per cent), HYV coverage (57 per cent) and
total ground water draft (21.014), proportion of population density (by 45 persons per sq.km),
SF/MF (18.034), irrigated area (8.067), Crop crop loan (147 per cent), and ground water draft
diversity Index (7.267), and crop loan (7.062). (9.27 per cent) which further increased the
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

In 2010–11 also, the weights were higher for the sensitivity of the district.
sensitivity variables like percentage of small and The lower adaptive capacity of the district was
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

marginal farmers (30.113) followed by population due to low forest cover (9th position) and higher
www.IndianJournals.com

density (25.526), livestock population (20.909), percentage of BPL families (4th). In a decade, the
amount of crop loan (20.186), total ground water adaptive capacity has worsened from 7th position
draft (10.525), and irrigated area (9.56). The to 13th position mainly because of the relatively
demand pull factors like population density and poor improvement in forest cover. Forest cover
livestock population exerted maximum influence is the most influencing factor in the adaptive
on the sensitivity, followed by other factors like strategy. The proportion of below poverty line
irrigated area. The sensitivity of the system due to (BPL) families has declined during the period,
the poor resource base of the population is also a though it was only marginal (10th position to
major influencing variable. 4th position with respect to proportion of
The percentage of actual forest cover was the BPL families).
major factor influencing the adaptive capacity The policy of regulating the ground water
followed by proportion of BPL families. In draft and monitoring of crop loans can be areas
comparison to rainfall, temperature was the of short term policy focus. As always emphasized,
important exposure variable during both the importance of maintaining and improving the
the periods. actual forest cover is to be accorded importance.
The districts were ranked separately on the Ernakulam is the second highest vulnerable
basis of exposure, sensitivity, adaptation capacity district, in the state, with an index of 152.58.
and finally vulnerability and the results are The district stands at 10th position in exposure
given in Tables 7–8 and Figures 1–8. Thrissur index, 4th position in sensitivity index, and
district was ranked as the most vulnerable with 14th position in adaptive capacity index. High
an index of 199.55 (Table 3) though the exposure sensitivity and very low adaptive capacity
status was at the 7th position with the maximum renders the system more vulnerable. High
temperature at 32°C and rainfall being 2,949.8 sensitivity is mainly due to the rise of irrigated
mm. The high vulnerability is mainly due to very agriculture (5th), higher level of total ground
high sensitivity (first) and low adaptive capacity water draft (4th), crop loan distribution (4th),
(13th). It is clear that the level of vulnerability and comparatively higher livestock population
is influenced not by the weather variables (5th). Even though the per capita income is the

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 48 Indira Devi, P, Sunil K M, Sebin Sara Solomon, and Seenath P

Table 2: Weights from PCA and its associated statistics

2000–01 2010–11
Sl.No. Indicators Weights from Mean Std Deviation Weights from Mean Std Deviation
PCA PCA
1 Rainfall 6.543 2908.12 623.82 3.276 2639.37 671.52
2 Temperature 17.130 31.01 2.36 18.526 31.79 1.89
3 Total cropped area 2.946 0.41 0.09 –2.923 0.70 0.14
4 Crop diversity Index 7.267 2.74 0.43 –.361 3.39 0.39
5 Crop Intensity –12.888 1.20 0.08 –5.975 1.32 0.14
6 Area irrigated 8.067 25.12 17.38 9.560 19.06 16.07
7 Total groundwater draft 21.014 208.58 91.30 10.525 19071.61 12688.08
8 Net ground water status –10.591 236.39 103.18 –1.067 43064.21 16044.91
9 HYV coverage –2.378 64.52 22.49 .670 83.36 20.01
10 Population density 27.755 918.71 418.39 25.526 911.14 398.28
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

11 Percentage SF/MF 18.034 98.17 1.51 30.113 98.65 1.13

Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

12 Crop loan 7.062 180.91 49.19 20.186 233.23 86.75

www.IndianJournals.com

13 Agricultural Income –26.166 23.30 12.07 –23.448 10.81 5.10

14 Livestock population 26.045 22.19 7.13 20.909 10.28 3.92
15 Per capita income 6.002 10687.21 1588.67 –8.616 58497.29 11549.03
16 Literacy rate –15.205 89.33 4.58 –20.085 93.69 2.67
17 Investment credit –16.990 26.71 12.34 –22.126 36.13 21.07
18 Percentage of BPL families 1.689 36.59 10.84 5.794 22.83 7.87
19 Forest cover 21.811 37.00 21.96 18.660 42.24 23.10
Source: Estimated from the data

highest among the districts (1st), very low forest period, it was not enough to offset the increase in
cover makes it more vulnerable to water scarcity. sensitivity impacts.
The result underlines the importance of forest Malappuram district is in the 3rd position
cover in addressing the water scarcity situation. with an index value of 105.82. The district
Water scarcity can be addressed sustainably, only recorded the highest vulnerability in 2000–01.
through investments in afforestation programmes But during the period under study the district
and other policy interventions cannot substitute has improved its position. The system has
this. The district was in 4th position in become less sensitive. The index for sensitivity
vulnerability a decade before with an index of was 94.17 during 2000-01 which became 81.65
93.17. The ranking of exposure index was 3rd, a decade later. The climatic variables(exposure
the sensitivity index was 4th, and the adaptive index) declined from 2.03 to –1.72 which is more
index was 10th. The district has become more favourable (Tables 3 and 4). The ground water
vulnerable due to the decrease in the adaptive status has improved through better net ground
capacity which is mainly decided by the extent of water position and lower draft. The dependence
actual forest cover. Though marginal increase has on agriculture for income has declined and the
been registered in the forest cover, during this livestock population has come down.

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 Vulnerability Mapping for Water Stress in Kerala 49

The adaptive capacity of the district has improved BPL families. The situation, however, could
over these years, through substantial increase improved further, if there were concerted efforts
in household income, through inclusive growth for improving the forest cover. The actual forest
strategies, thereby reducing the proportion of cover has declined from 38. 17 to 34.06 per cent.

Table 3: Exposure, Sensitivity, Adaptation, and Vulnerability indices of districts of Kerala (2010–11)
S No. Districts Exposure Sensitivity Adaptation Vulnerability
1 Thiruvananthapuram –0.23 102.52 15.79 86.50
2 Kollam 12.65 39.42 –29.09 81.16
3 Alappuzha –2.03 48.75 –30.72 77.44
4 Pathanamthitta 24.71 –58.36 2.06 –35.71
5 Idukki –29.48 –211.05 63.29 –303.82
6 Kottayam 7.93 –42.19 –36.45 2.19
7 Ernakulam –0.93 79.92 –73.58 152.58
8 Thrissur 3.55 152.37 –43.63 199.55
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

9 Palakkad 3.90 35.91 41.07 –1.26

Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

10 Malappuram –1.72 81.65 –25.90 105.82

www.IndianJournals.com

11 Kozhikode 11.65 50.52 –18.25 80.43

12 Wayanad –47.69 –199.34 97.46 –344.49
13 Kannur 16.96 –0.75 –14.51 30.72
14 Kasaragod 0.73 –79.38 52.45 –131.10
Source: Estimated from the data
Table 4: Exposure, Sensitivity, Adaptation and Vulnerability indices of districts of Kerala (2000–01)
S No. Districts Exposure Sensitivity Adaptation Vulnerability
1 Thiruvananthapuram –2.03 84.52 7.39 75.10
2 Kollam 13.17 36.40 –10.25 59.83
3 Alappuzha –4.54 52.95 –33.67 82.08
4 Pathanamthitta 25.93 –100.40 7.66 –82.13
5 Idukki –32.84 –173.77 68.39 –275.00
6 Kottayam 7.84 32.87 –73.48 114.20
7 Ernakulam 8.02 60.92 –24.22 93.17
8 Thrissur 5.08 109.65 –3.73 118.45
9 Palakkad –3.41 2.88 34.49 –35.02
10 Malappuram 2.03 94.17 –33.17 129.37
11 Kozhikode 2.22 30.90 –33.70 66.82
12 Wayanad –35.69 –205.45 69.38 –310.52
13 Kannur 7.96 23.57 –10.90 42.42
14 Kasaragod 6.24 -49.20 35.82 –78.78
Source: Estimated from the data

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 50 Indira Devi, P, Sunil K M, Sebin Sara Solomon, and Seenath P

When we tried to map the districts of Kerala,

based on the relative value of the vulnerability Kasargod
High vulnerability
index, Thrissur, Eranakulam, Malappuram,
Medium vulnerability
Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Kozhikode,
Kannur Low vulnerability
Alappuzha, and Kannur were grouped as highly
vulnerable; Idukki and Wayanad districts were Wayanad
in the relatively safer status; and Kottayam, Kozhikode
Malappuram
Palakkad, Pathanamthitta and Kasargod were in
the medium vulnerability status (Figure 1). This
categorization was based on the relative value of
the index. The vulnerability index, of the social Palakkad

system, is based on the sensitivity factors and the

level of adaptation capabilities. The forest cover, Thrissur
being the strongest variable, adjusts the system
to water scarcity. It is important to note that Ernakulam Idukki
investing in natural capital (trees/forests) should
Kottayam
be taken up on priority.
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

Alappuzha
The districts Kottayam, Malappuram,
Alappuzha, Kannur, and Kasargod showed an
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

improvement in their relative vulnerability

www.IndianJournals.com

Pathanamthitta
status from higher to lower vulnerability over
Kollam
the decade (Table 5). Thrissur, Ernakulam,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Kozhikode, and
Pathanamthitta have become more vulnerable Thiruvananthapuram
during the same period. The rest of the districts,
Figure 1: Vulnerability Map of Kerala 2010–11
Palakkad, Idukki, and Wayanad showed relatively
Source: All figures provided by the authors
stable position in their vulnerability status.

Table 5: Vulnerability status of the districts over the decade 150

118
Vulnerability status 111

Sl. no. 100

82
Pathanamthitta

Improved Status-quo Declined

53
Kottayam
Kasargod

50 44
Wayanad
1 Kottayam Palakkad Thrissur 23 16 Idukki
4 1
2 Malappuram Idukki Ernakulam 0
Kozhikode
Thiruvananthapuram

Thrissur

Palakkad
Malappuram

Kollam

Alappuzha

Ernakulam

Kannur

3 Alappuzha Wayanad Thiruvananthapuram –50

–26 –31

4 Kasaragod Kollam –71

–100
5 Kannur Kozhikode
Vulnerability
6 Kannur –150
–149

7 Pathanamthitta –200
–176

Source : Derived from the results Figure 2: Vulnerability Index 2010–11

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 Vulnerability Mapping for Water Stress in Kerala 51

200
151
30 150
25

Pathanamthitta
103
20 100

Malappuram
17 81 79

Ernakulam

Alappuzha
13 12

Wayanad

Kottayam

Kasargod
Wayanad
51 49
10

Kannur
8 50 39 37

Idukki

Idukki
4 4
1 0
0 0
–1

Thiruvananthapuram

Palakkad
Thiruvananthapuram

Malappuram

Kollam
Ernakulam

Alappuzha
Kozhikode
–1

Thrissur
Kasargod
Kottayam
–2 –2
Kozhikode
Pathanamthitta

Kannur

Kollam

Palakkad

Thrissur
-10 -50 –43
–58
–79
-20 –100

-30 –29 –150

-40 Exposure –200 Sensitivity

–199
–210
-50 –48 –250

Figure 3: Vulnerability Index 2010–11 Figure 4: Vulnerability Index 2010–11

120
100 97
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

80
63
60 52 Kasargod
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

Malappuram

41
40 High vulnerability
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kozhikode
www.IndianJournals.com

Kottayam

Thrissur
Kannur

Medium vulnerability
Kollam

20 16
2 Kannur Low vulnerability
0
Wayanad

Idukki

Kasargod

Palakkad

Thiruvananthapuram
Pathanamthitta

-20 –15 –18

–26 Wayanad
–29 –31
-40 –36
–44 Kozhikode
-60 Malappuram

-80 –74
Adaptation
-100
Palakkad
Figure 5: Vulnerability Index 2010–11

150
Thrissur

111
100 90 Idukki
Ernakulam
Pathanamthitta

63
Kottayam
Kozhikode

45
Kottayam
Kasargod

50
Wayanad

39 34
Idukki

21 15 Alappuzha
0 –1
Thrissur
Thiruvananthapuram

Malappuram

Ernakulam

Kollam
Palakad

Alappuzha
Kannur

–7
–33
–50
Pathanamthitta
–67
–100 Kollam
Vulnerability
–150 –138

–172 Thiruvananthapuram
–200

Figure 7: Vulnerability Index 2010–11 Figure 6: Vulnerability Index 2010–11

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 52 Indira Devi, P, Sunil K M, Sebin Sara Solomon, and Seenath P

30 150
26

Thiruvananthapuram
110
94

Pathanamthitta
20 100 85
13 61 53

Kasargod

Wayanad
50

Alappuzha
36 33

Palakkad

Wayanad
10 31

Idukki
8 8 8 24
6

Idukki
5
3
2 2 0

Palakkad
Malappuram

Thiruvananthapuram

Kollam

Kottayam
Ernakulam

Alappuzha

Kozhikode
Thrissur

Kannur
0
Kollam

Kottayam

Kasargod
Ernakulam

Malappuram
Pathanamthitta

Kozhikode
Kannur

Thrissur
–2 –3 -50
–5 –49
-10
–100
–100
-20
–150

-30 –174
Exposure –200 Sensitivity
–33 –205
–36
-40 –250

Figure 8: Vulnerability Index 2010–11 Figure 9: Vulnerability Index 2010–11

80
69 68
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

60
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

40 36 34
www.IndianJournals.com

Malappuram
Ernakulam

Alappuzha
20

Kozhikode
Thrissur

Kannur
Kollam

8 7

0
Wayanad

Idukki

Kasargod

Palakkad

Pathanamthitta

Thiruvananthapuram

–4
–10 –11
–20
–24

–33 –34 –34

–40 Adaptation

Figure 10: Vulnerability Index 2010–11

Conclusion The two major factors that influence vulnerability

are the combined effect of exposure and
Vulnerability to any environmental factor is
sensitivity (positive) and the level of adaptation
decided by the level of exposure to the variable,
(negative).With limited control over exposure
level of sensitivity of the system, and ability of the
variables, especially in a climate change scenario,
system to adjust to the shock. Considering this
the policy focus may be on sensitivity factors
conceptual background, the districts of Kerala
that lead to vulnerability. The proportion of
are mapped, based on their level of vulnerability
small and marginal farmers, population density,
to water scarcity at two points of time. This index
livestock population, amount of crop loan, and
was developed based on agronomic, climatic
the total ground water draft are found to be the
and socioeconomic, and physical factors. The
major factors that influence the sensitivity. The
results classified that Thrissur, Ernakulam,
demand side variables (of water) and the general
Malappuram, Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam,
socio-economic status of the region decide the
Kozhikode, Alappuzha, and Kannur as highly
extent of sensitivity. The adaptive capacity is
vulnerable. Idukki and Wayanad districts were
decided, simultaneously, mainly by the extent
in the relatively safer status while Kottayam,
of forest cover. The importance of focusing on
Palakkad, Pathanamthitta, and Kasargod were in
conserving and improving the forest cover, for
the medium vulnerability status.

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 Vulnerability Mapping for Water Stress in Kerala 53

harnessing water resources and also for climate Hiremath D B and Shiyani R L. 2013. Analysis of
regulation is underlined. Thus, the policies for vulnerability indices in various agro-climatic
reducing vulnerability, in general, may focus zones of Gujarat. Ind. J. Agri. Econ. 68 (1): 122–137.
on improving water resource status through Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
afforestation programme on the one hand and 2001. Technical summary. In Climate Change 2001:
improving the socio-economic status on the other Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution
side. The resource allocation for the development of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of
programmes may be allocated, based on the the IPCC. Carthy J j, Caniziani O F, Leary N A, Dokken
relative status of the district, than based solely on D J and White K S (eds). Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
exposure variables (weather).
IPCC. 2007. Summary for policymakers. In Parry
References M L, Canziani O F, Palutikof P J, Linder V, and Hanson
Alcamo J, Doll P, Kaspar F, and Siebert S. 1997. Global C E (eds) Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation
change and global scenarios of water use and and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
availability: An application of Water GAP. the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge,
University of Kassel, CESR, Kassel, Germany. UK: Cambridge University Press pp. 7–22.
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

Bohle H G, Downing T E, and Watts M J. 1994. Kelly P and Adger W. 2000. Theory and practice in
Climate change and social vulnerability. Global assessing vulnerability to climate change and
Environmental Change 4(1): 37–48. facilitating adaptation. Climate Change
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

47: 325–352.
www.IndianJournals.com

Brooks N. 2003. Vulnerability, risk and

adaptation: A conceptual framework. Working Luers A L, Lobell D B, Sklar L S, Addams C L and
paper 38. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Matson A P. 2003. A method for quantifying
vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system
Devi P I, Shanmughasundaram, and Prema A. 2011. In
of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Global Environmental
Micro-irrigation: Economics and outreach in Kerala,
Change 13: 255–267.
edited by Palanisami K, Raman S, and Mohan K, New
Delhi: Macmillan Publishers India Ltd pp. 94–119. Noronha L. 2003. An approach to assessing
vulnerability and coping strategies. In
Fraser E D G. 2007. Travelling in antique lands: Using
Environmental threats, vulnerability and adaptation:
past famines to develop an adaptability/resilience
Case studies from India. New Delhi: The Energy and
framework to identify food systems vulnerable to
Resources Institute 2003 pp. 31–40.
climate change. Climate Change 83(4): 495–514.
O’Brien K, Eriksen S, A Schjolden, and Nygaard
Gallopίn G C. 2003. Box 1. A systemic synthesis
L. 2004a. What’s in a word? Conflicting
of the relations between vulnerability,
interpretations of vulnerability in climate
hazard, exposure and impact, aimed at policy
change research. CICERO Working Paper 2004:
identification. In Economic Commission for Latin
04. Oslo, Norway: Centre for International Climate and
American and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Handbook
Environmental Research.
for estimating the socio-economic and environmental
effects of disasters. Mexico, DF: ECLAC. O’Brien K, Leichenko R, Kelkar U, Venem H, Anandhal
G, and Tompkins H. 2004b. Mapping vulnerability
Gbetibouo G A and Ringler C. 2009. Mapping
to multiple stressors: Climate change and
South African farming sector vulnerability to
globalization in India. Global Environmental
climate change and variability: A subnational
Change 14: 303–313.
assessment. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00885,
Environment and Production Technology Division, Patnaik U and Narayanan K. 2005. Vulnerability and
International Food Policy Research Institute, climate change: An analysis of eastern coastal
Washington, DC. districts of India. Paper presented in the Human
Security and Climate Change International Workshop,
Gow G A. 2005. Policy making for critical
Asker, Norwar, 21–23 June 2005. Available at <http://
Infrastructure. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

 54 Indira Devi, P, Sunil K M, Sebin Sara Solomon, and Seenath P

mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/22062/>, last accessed on Smit B, Pilifosova O. 2001. Adaptation to

10 May 2014. climate change in the context of sustainable
development and equity. In Chaper 18 of Climate
Rao G S L H V P, Rao A V R K, Krishnakumar K N, and
change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.
Gopakumar C S. 2009. Impact of climate change
Contribution of Working Group II to the Third
on food and plantation crops over the humid
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
tropics of Kerala. In Rao (ed), Climate change and
on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Agriculture over India. AICRP on Agrometereology
Cambridge, UK.
and Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, Thrissur,
pp.1–258. Swain M and Swain M. 2011. Vulnerability to
agricultural drought in Western Orissa: A case
Raskin P, Gleick P, Kirshen P, Pontius G, and Strzepek
study of representative blocks. Agric. Econ. Res.
K. 1997. Water Futures: Assessment of long-
Rev. 24: 47–56.
range patterns and prospects. Stockholm
Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 256 pp. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). 2003.
Coping with global change: Vulnerability and
Ribot J C, Magalhaes A R, and Panagides S S. 1996.
adaptation in Indian agriculture. New Delhi: The
Climate variability, climate change, and
Energy and Resources Institute.
social vulnerability in the semi-arid tropics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 358pp. Turner B L, Kaperson R E, Matson P A, McCarthy J
Downloaded From IP - 14.139.185.60 on dated 29-Aug-2017

J, Corell R W, Christensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson J

Seckler D, Molden D J, and Sakhtivadivel R. 2003.
X, Luers A, Martello M L, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, and
Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

The concept of efficiency in water resources

Schiller A. 2003. A framework for vulnerability
www.IndianJournals.com

management and policy. In Kijne J W, Barker

analysis in sustainability science. Proc. Natl.
R, and Molden D J (eds) Water productivity
Acad. Sciences 100: 8074–8079.
in agriculture: Limits and opportunities for
improvement. CABI, Wallingford, UK. pp. 37–51. Vorosmarty C J, Green P, Salisbury J, and Lammers R
B. 2000. Global water resources: Vulnerability
Shiklomanov I A. 1991. The world’s water
from climate change and population growth.
resources. In Proceedings of the International
Science 289: 284–288.
Sympossium to Commemorate 25 years of the IHP,
UNESCO/ IHP, Paris, France. pp. 93–126 Wallace J S. 2000. Increasing agricultural water
efficiency to meet future food production. Agric.
Simelton E, Fraser E D G, Termansen M, Forster
Ecosyst. Environ. 82:105-119.
P M, and Dougill A J. 2009. Typologies of crop-
drought vulnerability: An empirical analysis Wallace J S and Gregory P J. 2002. Water resources
of the socioeconomic factors that influence the and their use in food production. Aquat. Sci.
sensitivity and resilience to drought of three 64: 363–375.
major food crops in China (1961-2000). Environ.
Sci. and Policy 12 (4): 438–452.

Journal of Resources, Energy, and Development  11(1&2): 41–54

View publication stats