Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

in India Using a Common Framework

i
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Cover photo: Farmers in Dhamoon Panchayat in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

ii
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Climate Vulnerability Assessment

for Adaptation Planning in India
Using a Common Framework
Submitted by
Indian Institute of Technology Mandi and Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati

In collaboration with
Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Under the project

Climate vulnerability and risk assessment at the national level using a common framework

2019-2020

iii
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table of Contents
Message from Secretary, DST....................................... v 3.11. Karnataka......................................................67

Foreword.................................................................... vi 3.12. Kerala............................................................ 70

Preface...................................................................... vii 3.13. Madhya Pradesh ...........................................72

Project Team............................................................ viii 3.14. Maharashtra..................................................76

Acknowledgements ................................................... xi 3.15. Manipur ........................................................ 78

List of Acronyms........................................................ xii 3.16. Meghalaya....................................................80

Introduction ............................................................... 1 3.17. Mizoram........................................................ 85

PART I- STATE-LEVEL VULNERABILITY 3.18. Nagaland...................................................... 88

PROFILE OF INDIA...................................................... 9
3.29. Orissa............................................................. 90
PART II- DISTRICT-LEVEL VULNERABILITY
PROFILE OF INDIA ................................................... 23 3.20. Punjab........................................................... 93

PART III- VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 3.21. Rajasthan ...................................................... 95

BY THE STATES AND UTs.......................................... 41 3.22. Sikkim............................................................ 98
3.1. Andhra Pradesh...............................................43 3.23. Tamil Nadu..................................................100
3.2. Arunachal Pradesh..........................................45 3.24. Telangana....................................................103
3.3. Assam.............................................................. 47 3.25. Tripura.........................................................105
3.4. Bihar................................................................ 49 3.26. Uttar Pradesh..............................................107
3.5. Chhattisgarh....................................................51 3.27. Uttarakhand................................................111
3.6. Gujarat............................................................. 54 3.28. West Bengal.................................................113
3.7. Haryana........................................................... 57 3.29. Pondicherry ................................................118
3.8. Himachal Pradesh............................................59 Utility of the report and way forward ..................... 123
3.9. Jammu & Kashmir...........................................62 References.............................................................. 125
3.10. Jharkhand......................................................64 Appendix................................................................. 127

iv
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Message from the

Secretary, DST
Climate change is the global phenomenon especially caused by human
activities and is a growing challenge to humanity and sustainable
development. The effect of climate change on the biophysical and social
systems are expected to vary significantly in different parts of India and
will be determined by both global and local factors. The impact of climate
change and climate hazards is not uniform across space and time. It varies
across regions due to differences in the level of exposure and vulnerability
of various systems, be it ecosystems, economic sectors, or social groups.
For these reasons, assessment of the vulnerability of a system is one of
the critical steps to identify appropriate adaptation measures to adapt to
climate change risks as also to cope with current climate risks.

In response to the serious threats posed by climate change to the

development process and the limitations that India is facing, the
Government of India as part of its comprehensive National Action Plan on
Climate Change has a dedicated mission for development of appropriate
institutional and human resource capacity for this purpose under the
National Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change (NMSKCC),
being coordinated by the Department of Science & Technology.

This report presents the initiatives being taken up by the DST in collaboration
with Swiss Agency of Development and Cooperation (SDC) to strengthen
the capacities of all the state Climate Change Cells and other relevant
departments on conducting a vulnerability and risk assessment, which is a
vital input towards adaptation planning. This report portrays a tremendous
coordination and collaborative efforts by the state departments to develop
their vulnerability maps which are not only useful to understand the
entry-point of adaptation interventions, but also useful to understand the
sectors and locations that require special attention for overall development
planning. Additionally, the report also synoptic view would help in climate
change adaptation linked decision-making processes at both the State and
national level.

I wish to compliment the efforts made by the Indian Institute of

Technology (IIT) Mandi, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Guwahati and
Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bengaluru, Climate Change Programme
(CC) - SPLICE Division, DST and the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation (SDC) for bringing out this report and initiating capacity
building on vulnerability and risk assessment.

Prof. Ashutosh Sharma

Secretary, Department of Science and Technology

v
Foreword
There is no denying that climate change is one of the greatest concerns today.
It goes without saying that it needs to be addressed through collective actions.
While there are multiple biophysical and socioeconomic channels through
which the impact of climate change is likely to be felt in various parts of India,
there are ample opportunities to take up appropriate adaptation strategies
that would also cater to the holistic and sustainable development of the
country. Needless to say, the requirements of adaptation to climate change
are varying in different parts of the country.

Recognising the need for a coordinated effort towards climate change

adaptation and to better understand the linkages between climate change and
the Himalayan ecosystem for improved management of a fragile ecosystem,
the Government of India launched a National Mission for Sustaining the
Himalayan Ecosystem (NMSHE) as part of National Action Plan on Climate
Change (NAPCC). The Department of Science & Technology (DST) has been
the coordinating and implementing the mission in collaboration with several
other central ministries. In 2018-19, DST in partnership with Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation (SDC), Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
(IIT Guwahati), Indian Institute of Technology Mandi (IIT Mandi) and Indian
Institute of Science, Bengaluru (IISc, Bengaluru), the 12 Himalayan States
produced a first of its kind vulnerability map and report for the entire Himalayan
region. Following the success of the project as gauged by the feedback from
the State Governments regarding the usefulness of the exercise, it was decided
to expand its scope to an all-India level.

I am delighted to know that this project jointly supported by DST and SDC
has successfully resulted in development of all-India state-level and district
level vulnerability maps. What is most heartening is to see the concept of
cooperative federalism in action wherein a common framework for assessing
the climatic vulnerability was used by all the states in India to develop their own
district-level vulnerability maps. This will also help the states to update their
revised State Action Plan on Climate Change. Let me also take this opportunity
to thank SDC for their continued collaboration and partnering with India for
taking up such an important exercise.

India is a world leader in addressing the challenge of climate change. This effort
at district, state and national level to develop vulnerability profiles will assist
all in devising strategies and prioritizing locations for adaptation interventions
to reduce vulnerability to climate risks as envisaged in the NDC of India. I take
this opportunity to congratulate and thank the DST, SDC and IIT Mandi, IIT
Guwahati, IISc, Bengaluru and all the State Governments, who contributed to
the preparation of the report.

Dr. Akhilesh Gupta

Head, SPLICE
Department of Science and Technology
Government of India
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Preface
Climate change is a serious threat to socio-economic development globally and in India. Adapting to the present
and future impacts of climate change is crucial to secure hard won gains and increase the resilience of vulnerable
communities, in particular for those living in the fragile mountain ecosystems.

To foster and support adaptation in the Indian Himalayan region, the Government of India and the Government
of Switzerland, through the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), have implemented a
bilateral project called the Indian Himalayas Climate Adaptation Programme (IHCAP). IHCAP has supported the
implementation of the National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem (NMSHE) by strengthening the
capacities of research institutions, decision makers and communities to adapt to the varying climatic conditions,
and by facilitating the exchange of knowledge and expertise.

The multiplicity of challenges in a diverse country such as India calls for a coordinated and integrated approach
to adaptation planning. A comprehensive understanding of the key risks and vulnerabilities based on robust
research can also help prioritize action. Therefore, the development and application of a common framework
for vulnerability and risk assessment for the Indian Himalayan Region was organized under IHCAP.

Following the positive feedback received from State governments of the Himalayan region regarding the
usefulness of the assessment, SDC and the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India,
rolled out the climate vulnerability assessment at the national level. A series of workshops were organized to
develop a uniform understanding of the risks, availability of datasets, and to map the vulnerabilities. The present
nation-wide vulnerability assessment report represents a significant contribution to India’s National Action Plan
on Climate Change (NAPCC), and in particular to the National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem
(NMSHE) and the National Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change (NMSKCC).

SDC would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government of India, all involved States and Union
Territories and all involved stakeholders on the launch of this milestone report. We look forward to continuing
and further strengthen our excellent collaboration in the future.

Ms. Corinne Demenge

Head of Cooperation in India
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)

vii
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Core Team
Shyamasree Dasgupta*, Anamika Barua**, Surbhi Vyas* and N.H. Ravindranath***

*Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, **Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati,

***Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Editorial Team
Dr. Akhilesh Gupta
Head, SPLICE, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India

and

Dr. Nisha Mendiratta

Associate Head, SPLICE Department of Science and Technology, Goverment of India

Contributing Team
Vikas Bagde, Tashina Esteves, Mir Khursheed Alam, Taj ud din Malik,
Indian Institute of Technology Mandi

Contributing Teams from States and UTs

Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Junior Research Fellow, Department of

Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of
Shri D. Dohu Robin, Director (Environment & Climate Bihar
Change) Mr. Agnivesh Uday Roy, Climate Change Expert,
Dr. Bhupen Mili, Research Associate, State Climate Change Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Cell Government of Bihar
Shri Rinchin Tsering Gonpapa, Junior Research Fellow, Dr. Navin Kumar, Scientist, Bihar State Pollution Control
State Climate Cell Board
Shri Dohu Tapuk, Project Assistant Dr. Shilpi, Programme Officer, Bihar State Pollution Control
Board
Assam
Chhattisgarh
Sri K.S.P.V. Pavan Kumar (IFS), CEO, Assam Climate Change
Management Society (ACCMS) Mr. PC Pandey, IFS, Director, State Forest Research &
Sri Rizwan Uz Zaman, Technical Consultant, ACCMS Training Institute & Nodal Officer State Centre for Climate
Change
ir. Dipima Sarma, Research Associate-III, Climate Change
Cell, Assam Dr. Anil Kumar Shrivastava Research Associate,
Chhattisgarh State Centre for Climate Change
Sri Arindam Goswami, Research Associate-II (Outreach),
Climate Change Cell, Assam Gujarat
Ms. Priyanka Borah, SRF, Climate Change Cell, Assam Dr. Sweta Rajpurohit, Manager and Project Coordinator,
Sri Debashish Talukdar, JRF, Climate Change Cell, Assam (Gujarat NAFCC), GEER Foundation, Gandhinagar, Gujarat
Ms. Munmiara Begum, JRF, Climate Change Cell, Assam Haryana
Bihar Dr. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Joint Director, Directorate of
Dr. Md. Osaid Alam, Research Associate - III, Department Environment & Climate Change, Haryana
of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government Dr. Jasbir Kaur Taak, Research Associate, Haryana Climate
of Bihar Change Cell (NMSKCC)
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Programme Officer, ENVIS Hub, Haryana

viii
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Himachal Pradesh Mr. Abhijit Sharma, JRF (Project Management), State

Knowledge Management Center on Climate Change,
Dr. Suresh C. Attri, Principal Scientist-cum-Coordinator, EPCO, Department of Environment, GoMP, Bhopal
HP Knowledge Cell on Climate Change, Department of Mr. Jitesh Singh, JRF (Information Technology), State
Environment, Science & Technology, Government of Knowledge Management Center on Climate Change,
Himachal Pradesh EPCO, Department of Environment, GoMP, Bhopal
Mr. D. C. Thakur, MIS Officer, Department of Environment,
Science & Technology, Government of Himachal Pradesh Manipur
Ms. Monika Sharma, Advisor & Expert (Climate Change), Dr. T. Brajakumar Singh, (Deputy Director), Directorate of
Department of Environment, Science & Technology, Environment & Climate Change, Govt. of Manipur.
Government of Himachal Pradesh
Mr. Yengkokpam Satyajit Singh, Project Scientist, State
Jammu and Kashmir Climate Change Cell, Manipur, Directorate of Environment
& Climate Change, Govt. of Manipur.
Mr. Majid Farooq, Scientist/Coordinator State Climate
Change Cell, J&K Meghalaya
Mr. Mudasir Ahmad Dada, Geospatial Analyst Mr. Vivek Lyngdoh, JRF, Meghalaya Basin Development
Authority
Jharkhand
Ms. Devapriya De Munshi, JRF, Meghalaya Basin
Shri Sanjay Srivastava, IFS, APCCF- CAMPA, Jharkhand Development Authority
Shri Vijay Shankar Dubey, IFS, DCF Training Mizoram
Shri Ved Prakash Kamboj, IFS, DFO, Ramgarh
Dr. R.K. Lallianthanga, Chief Scientific Officer &
Karnataka Member Secretary & PI (Mizoram State Climate Change
Cell),Mizoram Science, Technology and Innovation
Dr. K.H. Vinaya Kumar, Director, EMPRI Council (MISTIC), Directorate of Science and Technology,
Dr.O.K. Remadevi, Consultant & Head, Centre for Climate Government of Mizoram
Change, EMPRI Mr. Samuel Lalmalsawma, Senior Scientific Officer & Co-
Dr.Hema.N, Research Scientist, Centre for Climate Change, PI (Mizoram State Climate Change Cell), Mizoram Science,
EMPRI Technology and Innovation Council (MISTIC), Directorate
of Science and Technology, Government of Mizoram
Dr.Pavithra.P.Nayak, Research Scientist, Centre for Climate
Change, EMPRI Mr. Lalthanpuia, Scientist - B, Mizoram State Climate
Change Cell
Ms.Aishwarya.P.B, Project Assistant, Centre for Climate
Change, EMPRI Dr. James Lalnunzira Hrahsel, Project Scientist, Mizoram
State Climate Change Cell
Mr.Pramodha.N.Y, Project Assistant, Centre for Climate
Change, EMPRI Mrs. Laldinpuii Hauhnar, Project Scientist, Mizoram State
Climate Change Cell
Kerala
Nagaland
Dr. Jude Emmanuel, Environmnenntal Scientist, Directorate
of Environment and Climate Change Ms. Meziwang Zeliang, SRF, Nagaland State Climate
Change Cell
Madhya Pradesh Mr. Kenilo Kessen, SRF, Nagaland State Climate Change Cell
Mr. Lokendra Thakkar, General Manager CCC&SD and Mr. Thsope Medo, SRF,Nagaland State Climate Change Cell
Coordinator State Knowledge Management Center on Mr. Mhabemo N Patton, SRF, Nagaland State Climate
Climate Change, EPCO, Department of Environment, Change Cell
GoMP, Bhopal
Mr.Vekho Tunyi, Project Assistant,Nagaland State Climate
Mr. Ramratan Simaiya, Subject Expert (Agriculture), State Change Cell
Knowledge Management Center on Climate Change,
EPCO, Department of Environment, GoMP, Bhopal Mr. Dimusie Pojar, Project Assistant, Nagaland State
Climate Change Cell
Mr. Prateek Barapatre, Subject Expert (Climate Change
Adaptation), State Knowledge Management Center on Mr. Ditho Kathiry, Scientist C, Nagaland Science and
Climate Change, EPCO, Department of Environment, Technology Council
GoMP, Bhopal Mr. Kethoneilhou Vemera, Jr.SMS , Dept. of Agriculture,
Mr. Ravi Shah, Project Associate, Centre for Climate Government of Nagaland
Change and Sustainable Development, Department of
Environment, GoMP, Bhopal

ix
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Orissa Telangana
Ms. Priyambada Pattanaik, Junior Scientist (Scientific), Mr. Adhar Sinha, IAS, Special Chief Secretary to
Climate Change Cell, F&E Department Government and Director General, EPTRI, Government of
Dr. Purna Chandra Mohapatra, Research Associate,Climate Telangana
Change Cell, F&E Department Dr. Manoranjan Bhanja, IFS (Retd.), Advisor (Technical),
Mr. Amit Kumar Mohanty, Senior Research Fellow, Climate EPTRI
Change Cell, F&E Department Dr. J. Sesha Srinivas, Sr. Scientist & Head, Climate Change
Ms. Monalisha Kanar, Junior Research Fellow, Climate Centre, EPTRI
Change Cell, F&E Department Dr. T. Ramesh, Research Associate (RA), EPTRI
Ms. Swagatika Patra, Junior Research Fellow, Climate Mr. Praveen, Junior Research Fellow (JRF), EPTRI
Change Cell, F&E Department
Uttarakhand
Pondicherry
Mr. Neeraj Singh, Senior Research Fellow, State
Mr. Kaliyaperumal Kalamegam, Environmental Engineer, Environment, Conservation & Climate Change Directorate
DST&E Mr. Shailendra Singh Rana, Senior Research Fellow, State
Dr. R. Sagaya Alfred, Senior Scientific Officer, DST&E Environment, Conservation & Climate Change Directorate
Dr. S. Vasanth, Research Associate, Puducherry Climate West Bengal
Change Cell
Smt. Subrata B. Dutta, Senior Scientist, Department of
Punjab Science & Technology, Government of West Bengal
Mr. Pritpal Singh, Additional Director, Punjab State Council Dr. Bimalesh Samanta, Senior Scientist, Department of
for Science & Technology Science & Technology, Government of West Bengal
Dr. Rupali Bal, Scientist-C, Punjab State Council for Science Smt. Lipika Khamaru, Senior Research Fellow
& Technology Shri. Santanu Samanta, Senior Research Fellow
Mr. Maganbir Singh, Principal Scientific Officer, Punjab Shri. Deepalok Banerjee, Senior Research Fellow
State Council for Science & Technology
Shri. Jyotibrata Chakraborty, Senior Research Fellow
Sikkim
Maharashtra
Mr. Pranay Pradhan, Sr. Research Assistant, Sikkim state
council of Science and Technology (Workshop participation only)
Mr. Radha Krishna Sharma, Scientist B, Sikkim state council Mr. Narendra D. Toke, Director, Environment Department,
of Science and Technology Government of Maharashtra
Dr. Ashwini Padalkar, Research Associate-I, SKMCCC,
Tamil Nadu Envt. and Climate Change Department., Government of
Mr Ahamed Ibrahim S N, Senior Research Fellow, Centre Maharashtra
for Climate Change and Disaster Management, Anna Ms. Shruti Panchal, Project Assistant, SKMCCC, Envt.
University, Chennai and Climate Change Department., Government of
Ms Pavithrapriya S, Senior Research Fellow, Centre Maharashtra
for Climate Change and Disaster Management, Anna Tripura
University, Chennai
Mr Guganesh S, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Climate (Workshop participation only)
Change and Disaster Management, Anna University, Mr. Susanta Banik, Scientific Officer, DST and Enironment
Chennai
Dr. Sabyasachi Dasgupta, Associate Professor, Tripura
University
For Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Rajasthan, Maharashtra,
and Uttar Pradesh, the assessments are carried out by
the project team at IIT Mandi, IIT Guwahati and IISc
Bengaluru

x
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report on ‘Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning in
India Using a Common Framework’ is part of an important activity of the capacity
building programme under the two National Missions on Climate Change i.e.
National Mission on Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem (NMSHE) and National
Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change (NMSKCC) being coordinated
by Climate Change Program (CCP) of SPLICE Division, Department of Science and
Technology (DST), Government of India. The activity was conducted in partnership
with the the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Embassy of
Switzerland through the project ‘Vulnerability Profiles for India: State and District
Levels’.
We are indeed extremely grateful to Prof Ashutosh Sharma, Secretary, DST for
constantly supporting our programme and graciously motivating our efforts.
We sincerely appreciate the confidence he has shown towards our team ad
encouraging guidance that has helped us tremendously in achieving these goals.
I am grateful to Dr. Akhilesh Gupta, Head, SPLICE-CCP, DST who has been leading
this programme since its inception in 2009. He has been the motivating force
behind the planning and implementation of this programme.
On behalf CCP-SPLICE Division DST, I would like to acknowledge with sincere
gratitude the efforts of Prof N.H. Ravindranath of IISc Bengaluru, Prof Anamika
Barua of IIT Guwahati and Dr. Shyamasree Dasgupta of IIT Mandi for developing
the common framework and, coordinating this unique exercise which has provided
the vulnerability scenario of the entire country.
I would like to extend my thanks to the State Climate Change Cells and other line
departments of the state governments for their active participation in the training
programmes and the development of assessments for their respective states. This
report could not have been completed without their enthusiasm and cooperation.
We are extremely thankful to Ms. Corinne Demenge, Head, Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation (SDC) in India, Embassy of Switzerland, Ms.
Marylaure Crettaz, the previous Head of Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation (SDC) in India, Embassy of Switzerland, Dr. Mustafa Ali Khan, Team
Leader, SCA-Himalayas, SDC, and Ms. Divya Sharma, Senior Thematic Advisor, SDC
and Dr. Yandup Lama, Project Associate, SCA-Himalayas, SDC for their immense
support at various stages of the implementation of the project.
We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Jagmohan Sharma, Additional
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Forest Conservation), Government of
Karnataka and Ms. Doris Canter Visscher for enhancing the quality of the report.
I would also like to thank the DST CCP-SPLICE team Dr. Susheela Negi, Scientis-E,
Dr. Rabindra Panigrahy, Scientist-D and Dr. Swati Jain, Scientist-C for providing
their valuable support during the study. Finally, I would like to convey my sincere
thanks to the research staff and administration of IIT Mandi, IIT Guwahati and IISc,
Bengaluru for their contribution and support at various stages of execution of the
project. I sincerely appreciate the efforts made by Mr. Rupam Bhaduri, research
Scholar, IIT Guwahati and Mr. Kritishnu Sanyal, Research Scholar, IIT Mandi.

Dr. Nisha Mendiratta

Associate Head, SPLICE
Department of Science and Technology
Government of India
xi
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

List of Acronyms
AV Actual Value
BPL Below Poverty Line
CRIDA Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture
DST Department of Science and Technology
GSDP Gross State Domestic Product
IHR Indian Himalayan Region
IISc, Bengaluru Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru
IIT Guwahati Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
IIT Mandi Indian Institute of Technology Mandi
IMR Infant Mortality Rate
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
NMSHE National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem
NRM Natural Resource Management
NTFPs Non-timber forest products
NV Normalised Value
PMFBY Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana
RWBCIS Restructured Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme
SAPCC State Action Plan on Climate Change
SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
UT Union Territories
VBD Vector borne Diseases
VI Vulnerability Index
WBD Waterborne Diseases

xii
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Key findings of the vulnerability assessment

•• Based on an all-India assessment, this report identifies the most vulnerable states and districts in India
with respect to current climate risk and the main drivers of vulnerability. The assessment is based on a
set of common indicators and common methodology. States also carried out district-level vulnerability
assessments individually.
•• State-level vulnerability indices developed in this report vary over a small range: 0.42-0.67. This
means all states must deal with concerns related to vulnerability.
•• The states with a relatively high vulnerability, Jharkhand, Mizoram, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Assam,
Bihar, Arunachal Pradesh, and West Bengal, are mostly in the eastern part of the country, requiring
prioritisation of adaptation interventions.
•• District-level vulnerability indices are also within a small range: 0.34 - 0.75. Assam, Bihar, and
Jharkhand have over 60% districts in the category of highly vulnerable districts.
•• Vulnerability indices are relative measures. This means, all districts or states are vulnerable, but
some are relatively more vulnerable than others, requiring prioritised adaptation interventions.

Application of the vulnerability assessment

•• The vulnerability assessment can assist in ranking and identification of the most vulnerable districts
and states and help states prioritise adaptation planning and investments.
•• It is critical for developing adaptation projects for the Green Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund, and funds
from multilateral and bilateral agencies.
•• The vulnerability assessments carried out by the states could become a chapter in their revised State
Action Plan on Climate Change, as per the outline provided by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change.
•• It will also facilitate Nationally Determined Contributions, which aims to adapt better to climate
change by enhancing investments in development programmes in sectors vulnerable to climate
change, particularly agriculture, water resources, health sector and regions such as Himalayan region,
coastal regions, etc. It may also aid to plan disaster management.
•• A vulnerability assessment contributes to reporting under the Paris Agreement, Article-9 through
the assessment of climate change impacts and vulnerability; the formulation and implementation of a
National Adaptation Plan, monitoring and evaluation of adaptation plans, policies and programmes; and
the development and implementation of resilience of socio-economic and ecological systems.

Way forward
•• A vulnerability assessment is a first step towards adaptation planning. The following tasks are suggested
for the future:
•• Need for development of climate change risk index, followed by risk ranking of states and districts,
where: Risk = f (Hazard, Exposure, Vulnerability).
•• Development of a common framework, methodology and guidelines for risk assessment.
•• All State Climate Change Centres funded by the Department of Science and Technology, Government
of India are interested in developing a Risk Index for states. It requires building capacity for risk
assessment and adaptation planning.
•• Generation of data for risk assessment is important. There is need of a strategy for data generation
for climate change risk and vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning.

xiii
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

xiv
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Introduction

1
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Introduction
There is now enough evidence that the earth’s workshops with representatives from 12 IHR states
climate is changing, and it is adversely affecting both were organised during the previous project. It resulted
biophysical (mountains, rivers, forests, wetlands, in the development of a state-level vulnerability map
etc.) and socio-economic systems (hill and coastal of the IHR and separate district-level maps based on
communities, agriculture, animal husbandry, etc.) vulnerability assessments carried out by the states.
(IPCC, 2014). According to The Germanwatch Global
Climate Risk Index- 2019 India ranked 5th out of 181 Following the success of these initial capacity building
countries, implying an extremely high exposure and activities, the next round, i.e., the present round, saw
vulnerability (Germanwatch, 2019). This ranking is an extension of the project to all states in India. In
based on quantified impacts of extreme weather the same format, multiple rounds of consultation and
events in terms of fatalities as well as economic losses capacity building workshops were conducted with
that have occurred during 1999-2018. However, the state representatives. Vulnerability assessments were
impact of climate change and climate hazards is not carried out at various levels: all-India state and district-
uniform across space and time. It varies across regions level assessments carried out by the project team at
due to differences in the exposure and vulnerability IIT Mandi, IIT Guwahati and IISc, Bengaluru and state-
of various ecosystems, economic sectors, and social specific district-level vulnerability assessments carried
groups (O’Brien, 2008). For these reasons, assessment out by the states. Most of the IHR states carried out
of the vulnerability of a system is one of the critical vulnerability assessments for agricultural sector, while
steps to identify appropriate adaptation measures to few of them ventured block-level assessments.
combat climate change as also to cope with current The project and the present report are targeted
climate risks. to enhance the capacities of the government
With support from the Department of Science and departments, academic and public institutions and to
Technology, Government of India and the Swiss assist them in making informed decisions regarding
Agency for Development and Cooperation, the adaptation planning and investment. The target group
Indian Institute of Technology Mandi (IIT Mandi) included national and state government departments,
and the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (IIT funding agencies, legislators, bureaucrats, local
Guwahati), in collaboration with the Indian Institute administration, and the general audience.
of Science (IISc Bengaluru) worked towards the
implementation of the project “Vulnerability Profiles Objectives
for India: State and District Level (Using a Common
Against this backdrop, the main objective of the
Framework)” with objectives of developing all-India
present report is to carry out a current-climate
vulnerability profiles and capacity building of the
state-level and district-level vulnerability assessment
states to carry out vulnerability assessments. The
for India based on the starting point/contextual
project was implemented during 2019-2020.
approach of vulnerability that has been discussed
This project has been preceded by a vulnerability further. Using a Vulnerability Index (VI), derived for
assessment of states in the Indian Himalayan Region each state/district in India, the study identified and
(IHR) in 2018-19, undertaken by the same project categorised the most vulnerable states and districts
team, as a part of the National Mission for Sustaining in the country and the major drivers of vulnerability.
the Himalayan Ecosystem (NMSHE) in the context of Identification of the most vulnerable states and
the National Action Plan on Climate Change. A key districts along with the drivers is an essential first step
area identified by the NMSHE was to build capacities for prioritising investment in climate adaptation. The
of the 12 IHR states for robust assessments of climate- project also aimed at building the capacity of states to
related vulnerability and for adaptation planning carry out vulnerability assessments within a common
and implementation. A series of consultations and methodological framework.

2
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

The report has the following 5 sections: Under objective I and II, the analysis was carried
out by IIT Mandi, IIT Guwahati and IISc Bengaluru
•• Introduction and the all-India vulnerability maps are prepared.
•• Part I: Development of an all-India state-level The outcomes are then shared and discussed with
current climate vulnerability profile, identification the states. Objective III was achieved through a
and ranking of the most vulnerable states and the series of capacity building workshops involving state
main drivers of state-level vulnerability. representatives. These state-level trained experts
•• Part II: Development of an all-India state-level subsequently developed vulnerability profiles and
current climate vulnerability profile, identification maps of their respective states in consultation with
and ranking of the most vulnerable states and the the project team.
main drivers of state-level vulnerability.
•• Part III: Development of current climate
Conceptualising vulnerability
vulnerability profiles of individual states at based on IPCC-AR5 framework
multiple scales such as districts/blocks/sectors.
The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
•• Achievements, utility of the report and way Panel on Climate Change, i.e., IPCC-AR5 (IPCC, 2014)
forward. defines the risk of climate change at the intersection
The state-level assessment was based on 29 states of ‘Hazard’, ‘Exposure’ and ‘Vulnerability’. In this
considering erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir. The modified risk-assessment framework, ‘vulnerability’ is
district-level assessment was based on 612 districts, conceptualised as an ‘internal property of a system’.
which covers the same geographical area as the It represents the propensity or predisposition of the
current 718 districts. Some recent bifurcations of system to be adversely affected, independent of
districts could not be taken into consideration due to hazard and exposure (Figure 1). While the mitigation
lack of availability of data leading to a reduction in the of climate hazards and the reduction of exposure
number of districts. are relatively long-term goals, governments and
development agencies may address climate change
adaptation most effectively by reducing vulnerability
in the short and medium-term.

Figure 1: IPCC-AR5 “Risk Management and Assessment Framework” depicting the risk arising at the intersection of Hazard,
Vulnerability and Exposure

3
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Staring-point and end-point approach current climate risks provides information about the
towards assessing vulnerability current weaknesses of a natural or socio-economic
system along with the drivers of such weaknesses. This
The concept of vulnerability may be operationalised will enable the development of strategies to address
in two ways (O’Brien, 2007; Kelly, 2000) the identified system weaknesses and to deal with or
adapt to the drivers. Therefore, reducing vulnerability
•• Starting point/contextual approach: Vulnerability from the current climate variability is the first practical
of a system is considered a pre-existing condition step to curtail losses and would be a reliable and ‘no-
in anticipation of a hazard. regret’ approach to reduce vulnerability and build
•• Endpoint/outcome approach: Vulnerability of a long-term resilience under climate change scenarios.
system is assessed before and after exposure to
a hazard. Need for a common framework of
The present study adopted a starting point/contextual vulnerability assessment
approach. It identified vulnerability based on pre-
existing conditions in a contextual manner. In this way, While various states in India had earlier developed
in anticipation of a climatic hazard or a non-climatic vulnerability profiles of their states, these profiles are
stressor, the vulnerability of a natural ecosystem or often not comparable, because the methods used by
socio-economic system is seen as a function of its them varied. Various times, states used the IPCC-2007
‘sensitivity’ (susceptibility to harm from a first-order definition and framework of ‘vulnerability’, which
impact of a hazard or stressor) and its lack of ‘adaptive is different from the state-of-the-art methodology
capacity’ to overcome or cope with such situations. depicted in IPCC-2014. The focus, in many cases,
was also on assessing future vulnerability to climate
Sensitivity and Adaptive Capacity change rather than understanding current climate
vulnerability. Further, states developed profiles or
Sensitivity and adaptive capacities, in this regard, are maps without any dialogue between them in most of
defined in the following manner: the cases. So, the method used, the indicators chosen,
•• Sensitivity: Sensitivity refers to the degree to and the outcome derived from the assessments were
which ‘a system or species is affected, either not comparable. But in order to achieve comparable
adversely or beneficially by climate variability results, it’s important that the states follow a common
or change’ (IPCC, 2014). This determines the methodology, that too the recent one.
first-order impact of a hazard or stressor on the Climate-change risk and vulnerability assessments are
system. The effect may be direct (e.g., change in essential prerequisites for climate change adaptation.
crop yield in response to a change in the mean, In the process of the State Action Plan on Climate
range, or variability of temperature) or indirect Change (SAPCC) revision, each state must develop
(e.g., damages caused by an increase in the its vulnerability profile as one chapter is dedicated
frequency of coastal flooding due to sea-level to the same. The present effort can give a head-start
rise). for such assessments. Such comparable outcomes
•• Adaptive capacity: Adaptive capacity is defined as are useful for government officials, implementers,
‘the ability of systems, institutions, humans, and decision- makers, funding agencies and development
other organisms to adjust to potential damage, experts. It will be enabling them to assess which
to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond states or districts in the country are relatively more
to consequences’ (IPCC, 2014). For example, if a vulnerable, what has made them vulnerable and how
comprehensive crop insurance system is in place, they might address these vulnerabilities.
farmers can cope with the damages to crops
caused by hazards such as floods or drought. Approaches to capacity building in
Current-climate vulnerability the state
The IPCC-AR5 (IPCC, 2014) also states: ‘The first Climate change poses unprecedented challenges to
step towards adaptation to future climate change is multiple communities and sectors and introduces a
reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate relatively large uncertainty. To reduce this uncertainty
variability’. A vulnerability assessment under the and plan for sustainable development it is essential to

4
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

build the capacity of various concerned departments at different levels and for different sectors. These
to assess vulnerability, with good knowledge of workshops were meant to train state participants in
the local conditions and context. The goal of the the common methodological framework, develop
current project is to achieve this by bringing together a better understanding of the indicators to be used
representatives of different departments working in vulnerability assessment, and create a dialogue
with state governments in a series of workshops to between states.
develop a uniform understanding of vulnerability
and to map it. Not only the capacity of individual Capacity Building Workshops
departments working with state governments has
been developed, but also adopting a coordinated and Two capacity building workshops were organised as a
common approach within all states in India has to be part of this project.
emphasised. This is important, because cooperation Their specific objectives were:
between states will enhance their understanding
and assessment of vulnerability, and in turn their •• Provide an overview of the evolution of the
understanding of adaptive capacity and resilience to concept of vulnerability and the framework of
climate change. assessment and its relevance for adaptation to
climate change in India.
Figure 2 presents the approach adopted in this
project to bring together representatives of different •• Demonstrate a common methodological
state governments and their departments, and to framework based on IPCC-2014 guidelines of
build their capacity for carrying out vulnerability vulnerability assessment under current climate
assessments. conditions.
•• Give hands-on training on methodological steps
Inception Meeting and challenges.
A meeting was organised in September 2019 at IIT •• Build an understanding of the resource pool
Guwahati to prepare the structure and timeline for the (resource persons and reference material) to
execution of the project. The selection of a preliminary facilitate vulnerability assessments by state
set of indicators for vulnerability assessment was departments.
discussed. It was decided to have a series of capacity •• Initiate a discussion on a common set of indicators
building workshops to be organised for various for vulnerability assessment across states and to
departments of the state governments including the come up with a preliminary list of indicators in
State Climate Change Cells so that they are equipped consultation with the participants.
to carry out their own vulnerability assessments

Figure 2: Approach followed under the project for state-level capacity building

5
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

The first workshop, called ‘Vulnerability Profiles based on a preliminary assessment carried out during
for India: State and District Level using a Common the workshop. Their presentation included description
Framework’, was held during February 2020 in New of indicators and data sources, a VI, and ranking of
Delhi. A total of 55 representatives participated from districts as well as maps based on this VI. Each state
the relevant state departments of 18 states and 3 was requested to prepare a report on the outputs
Union Territories (UT). The second capacity building generated using a standard template shared with
workshop was held in November 2020. Because of the them. Part III of this report is based on the reports
COVID-19 pandemic, the workshop had to be held on shared by the states, unless mentioned otherwise.
a virtual platform with 22 participants from 8 states.
Dissemination workshop
During the workshops, methodological steps were
demonstrated to provide hands-on training to the A dissemination workshop was organised in December
participants with the data provided by the states. 2020, online. 58 representative participated from
State representatives then collected data on the rest different state departments. The project team
of the indicators as per the availability of the data. shared the results from the all-India state-level and
Later participants had hands-on experience on the district-level assessments and appraised the state
data analysis. Step by step analysis was discussed with representatives of the vulnerability ranking of states
the participants. Emphasis was laid on the process of and districts. The results were also shared by the
analysis, using a common methodological framework project team with the states. Participants shared their
and visual representation of the key findings. On experiences and the challenges they had faced during
their return, they continued collection of data from the preparation of their state vulnerability profiles.
their line departments to complete the vulnerability They were mostly related to the (non-) availability of
assessment. contemporary, uniform data for the indicators. People
also observed that for any block-level assessment,
As expected, as an outcome of the workshops, the data need to be collected from line departments. The
state-representatives prepared draft comparative current pandemic situation has posed an additional
vulnerability maps at district level (and at block level, challenge in this regard.
in the case of two states). They presented their work

Figure 3: Capacity building workshops for the states

(top panel: in February 2020, Delhi; bottom panel: online workshop in November 2020)

6
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Methodology and steps of Use of the report

assessment A detailed discussion on the achievements of the
project and the utility of the report is provided in
Conducting a vulnerability assessment is a multi- the final section of the report and in the Executive
step exercise and requires setting a clear goals Summary. In brief, this assessment can assist in ranking
and objectives that will determine the type of and identification of the most vulnerable districts and
vulnerability assessment as well as the scale, sector, states for adaptation intervention and investment.
tier, indicators, and methods to be adopted. For this A vulnerability assessment is critical for preparing
assessment, the main objective was to assess the adaptation programmes and projects for the Green
relative vulnerabilities of states/districts/blocks based Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund, and funds from
on a set of common indicators. A detailed discussion international and bilateral agencies. The vulnerability
of the steps involved is available in the report Climate assessment reported on here will help states prioritise
Vulnerability and Risk Assessment: Framework, adaptation investments. The assessments carried out
Methods and Guidelines (developed under the Indian by states could become a chapter in their State Action
Himalayas Climate Adaptation Programme (IHCAP) Plan on Climate Change as per the outline provided
and NMSHE in 2018 (Sharma, et. al., 2018), followed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
by its application in the report “Climate Vulnerability Change. A detailed discussion on the use of the report
Assessment for the Indian Himalayan Region Using and the way forward is presented in the final section
a Common Framework” under NHSHE and IHCAP in of the report.
2018-19 (Barua, et. al., 2019). The steps of assessment
have been summarised in Table 1.

7
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 1: Steps of vulnerability assessment

Steps in vulnerability Details of vulnerability assessment

assessment pertaining to this report
To calculate vulnerability indices, rank the states and districts with these indices, and
1 Setting of scope highlight the drivers of vulnerability. This is the first step in adaptation planning. Current
climate vulnerability is considered.
Selection of type of Integrated vulnerability assessment (based on biophysical, socio-economic, and institution
2
vulnerability assessment and infrastructure-related vulnerability indicators).
Tier 1 (Tier 1: Based only on secondary data, Tier 2: A mix of primary and secondary data;
3 Selection of Tier methods
Tier 3: based on primary data)
Sectors: Agriculture, forest, health, and general indicators
Selection of sector, spatial
scale, community/ system, Spatial scale: State-level and district-level assessment (2 block-level studies also presented)
4
and period of vulnerability Period: Based on the availability of data, between 2011 and 2019
assessment

Part I: All-India state-level assessment: Initially 19 indicators were shortlisted but based on
the availability of data and correlation analysis, 14 were finalised.
Part II: All-India district-level assessment: This analysis, too, was based on 14 indicators.
Identification, definition, and Some of the indicators are different from the state-level analysis due to (non-)availability of
5 selection of indicators for data.
vulnerability assessment
Part III: State-specific assessment: While the all-India assessments were based on sets of
common indicators, state-specific assessments also used 2-3 separate indicators to capture
state-specific characteristics.

Quantification and All indicators were quantified using secondary sources of data. The database used in the
6
measurement of indicators assessment along with its sources is provided in main report.
Normalisation is based on the indicators’ functional relationship with vulnerability.
For positively related indicators, i.e., where vulnerability increases with an increase in the
value of the indicator, the following formula is used.
Xij - Mini {Xij}
xPij=
Maxi{Xij} - Mini{Xij}
For negatively related indicators, i.e., where vulnerability decreases with an increase in the
value of the indicator, the following formula was used:
7 Normali sation of indicators Maxi{Xij} - Xij
xNij=
Maxi{Xij} - Mini{Xij}
Where Xij is the value of jth indicator for ith district, Mini{Xij} is the minimum value of the jth
indicator across districts and Maxi{Xij} is the maximum value of the jth indicator. xPijand xnij
are the normalised values of the indicators, respectively for positively and negatively related
indicators. Normalised values of an indicator will lie between 0 and 1. The value 1 will
correspond to a district with maximum vulnerability and 0 will correspond to a district with
minimum vulnerability with respect to a particular indicator.

A Principal Component Analysis (PCA)-based weight assignment technique was explored to

assign differential weights to indicators. But results from PCA suggested almost equal weights
8 Assigning weights to indicators for all indicators, resulting in similar vulnerability ranking as obtained with equal weights.
Therefore, equal weights, i.e.1/14 = 0.071 were assigned to all indicators. Some states used
PCA-based weights for their analysis.

Aggregation of indicators Vulnerability indices are constructed by taking a simple arithmetic mean of all the normalised
9
vulnerability index scores: K is the number of indicators.

10 Representation of vulnerability

11. Vulnerability ranking Table, graphs, and spatial maps are used to represent vulnerability and its drivers. Arc-GIS
software has been used to construct the maps.
Identification of drivers of
12. vulnerability for adaptation
planning

8
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Part I:
State-level
vulnerability profile
of India

9
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Part I:
State-level vulnerability profile of India
This part of the report identifies and categorises the This part of the report provides a description of the
most vulnerable states in India and the main drivers of indicators used for the analysis, the results obtained
their vulnerability with respect to current climate risks. and the respective vulnerability maps. Given the
The objective is to assess the relative vulnerability diverse land-use pattern, socioeco-nomic and
of the states, based on a common set of indicators. demographic features and available infrastructure
A total of 29 states are considered for the analysis in various states in India, it’s im-portant to consider
and that includes the erstwhile state of Jammu and a range of indicators to construct the state-level VIs.
Kashmir, given the nature of data availability. This all- State-level values of some of the important features
India state-level vulnerability assessment will help are provided in the Appendix (Appendix_Table 1 and
policy-makers to prioritize the states for adaptation Appen-dix_Table 2).
interventions and to formulate climate-resilient poli-
cies. The state-level analysis has been carried out by 1.1. Indicators for the state-level
the research team IIT Mandi, IIT Guwahati and IISc
Bengaluru and the outcomes are then shared and analysis
discussed with the states. It is fol-lowed by a district- A set of 14 indicators of vulnerability was used in
level analysis in Part II of the report. the assessment capturing both ‘sensitivity’ and
Conducting vulnerability assessment is a multi-step ‘adaptive capacity’ of states. Table 2 presents the
exercise and requires the identification of a clear set construction of these indicators, their relationship
of goals and objectives that will determine the type of with vulnerability, and the rationale. The state-level
vulnerability assessment, scale, sector, tier, indicators, values of all indicators and data source are provided in
and methods to be adopted. The methodology opted the Appendix (Appendix_Table 3 and Appendix_Table
to develop the state-level vulnerability indices (VI) is 4). Specifically, the indicators comprised the following
based on the IPCC-AR5 risk assessment framework elements:
(IPCC, 2014). The details of the methodology have 1. Socio-economic features and livelihood:
been explained in a stepwise manner in the introduc- Percentage of population living below the poverty
tion of the report. A more detailed discussion on the line (BPL), income share from natural resources,
methodology is available in the Common Vulnerability share of horticulture in agriculture, proportion
Framework and Guidelines developed under the of marginal and small landholdings, women’s
IHCAP (IHCAP, 2018). participation in the workforce.

2. Biophysical aspects: Yield variability of food

grains, area under rainfed agriculture, forest area
per 1000 rural population, incidences of vector-
borne diseases and water-borne diseases.
3. Institution and infrastructure: Area covered
under centrally funded crop insurance schemes
(such as Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)
and Revised Weather-based Crop Insurance
Scheme (RWBCIS), implementation of Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act (MGNREGA), road and rail-network, the
density of healthcare workers.

Paddy Harvesting in Jammu and Kashmir, Photo by- Mr. Majid Farooq

10
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 2: List of indicators, their construction, and rationale for their selection for the all-India state-level analysis

Category
Construction (year of
Indicators Dimension (relevant sectors Rationale for selection
data in parenthesis)
is in parenthesis)
Percentage Percentage of population Sensitivity Socio-economic People with extremely low incomes, are among
BPL living below the poverty (Positive) features and the most vulnerable: they have little to no
population line. A person earning less livelihood (General) financial capital; so, they have the least capacity
than Rs. 965 per month in to adapt to impacts of climate risks (O’Brien, et.
urban areas and Rs. 781 in al., 2008)
rural areas are the poverty
lines (2011)
Income shares Total value output from Sensitivity Socio-economic and Climate variability and change directly affect the
from natural natural resources, i.e., (Positive) livelihood (General) productivity of natural resources. Any alteration
resources agriculture, forestry, in the quality and availability of natural resources
livestock, and fishery/ will have far-reaching implications on resource
GSDP. (2015-16 and 2014- users and the extensive social and economic
15 respectively with 2011- systems they support (Marshall, 2011). Thus,
12 constant price) higher dependency on natural resources for
income generation increases vulnerability.
Share of Value of output of Adaptive Socio-economic Horticulture trees are hardy and more resilient
horticulture in horticulture/Value of Capacity and livelihood to climate variations compared to agricultural
agriculture agricultural output (2015- (Negative) (Agricultural) crops. They provide alternate income sources
16) to agriculture. Once established, they are far
less sensitive to the impacts of climate risks,
particularly rainfall variability and droughts
(IHCAP, 2019).
Marginal Number of marginal and Sensitivity Socio-economic Marginal and smallholder farmers experience
and small small operational holdings, (Positive) and livelihood immediate hardship in face of any climatic
landholdings i.e., up to 2 hectares/Total (Agriculture) hazard. They are unable to make adequate
number of operational decisions about when to sow, what to grow, and
holdings (2015-16) how-to time inputs. (Sathyan, et. al., 2018). They
also find it difficult to cope with the high food
price and the fluctuations in the same.
Yield Coefficient of Variation, Sensitivity Biophysical A high variability in crop yields indicates
variability of (i.e., Standard Deviation (Positive) (Agriculture) fluctuations in agro-climatic conditions. The
food grains divided by the arithmetic agriculture sector is extremely sensitive to
mean) calculated for 10 climate fluxes, particularly rainfall variability
years of food grain yield (delayed rainfall, dry spells, drought, extreme
data (2005-2016) rainfall, and floods) and this indicator captures
this sensitivity (Davis, et. al., 2019)

Area covered Crop area insured under Adaptive Institution and Crop insurance helps farming households
under crop PMFBY and RWBICS/ Net Capacity infrastructure mitigate losses caused by climate risks. This
insurance sown area (Negative) (Agriculture) enhances their adaptive capacity (Swain, 2014).
(2017-18)

Area under (Net sown area - Net Sensitivity Biophysical Rainfed agriculture is highly sensitive to the
rainfed irrigated area)/ Net sown (Positive) (Agriculture) vagaries of weather. Lack of irrigation indicates a
agriculture area (2015-16) lack of adaptive capacity to mitigate the impacts
of climate risks, leading to increased crop loss
and reduced income of households dependent
on rainfed agriculture (Rani, et. al., 2011)

Forest Area of total forest in km2 Adaptive Biophysical (Forest) Forests are an important source of alternative
area per per 1,000 rural population Capacity livelihood and food through the extraction of
1,000 rural (2019) (Negative) non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Forests also
population provide essential ecosystem services for the
sustainable productivity of rural economies and
building of adaptive capacity (IHCAP, 2019).

11
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Category
Construction (year of
Indicators Dimension (relevant sectors Rationale for selection
data in parenthesis)
is in parenthesis)
Women’s Percentage of women Adaptive Socioeconomic and Women are known to be more sensitive to
participation in the overall workforce Capacity livelihood (General) climate risks. As gender inequality remains
in the (2011) (Negative) a major barrier to human development,
workforce women’s participation in the labour market is
an important indicator of gender equality (HDR,
2019). Regions with more women in gainful
employment would signify (some degree of)
gender equality, enhanced purchasing power,
and independence. Therefore, such working
women are likely less vulnerable to climate
change

MGNREGA Average days of Adaptive Institution and MGNREGA scheme as an alternative source
employment provided Capacity infrastructure of income helps in building adaptive capacity,
per household under (Negative) (General) particularly in dealing with unforeseen livelihood
MGNREGA in a year (2014- hazards (Adam, 2014). It acts as a safety net
15 to 2015-16) by providing any adult member of a household
registered under the scheme with 100 days
of wage labour a year and 150 days in case of
hazards such as droughts, floods, cyclones, and
hail. This provides households with a menial but
essential source of additional income to help
them tide over the impacts of hazards.

Road and rail The total length of Adaptive Institution and Under extreme weather events, the role
density surface road and length Capacity infrastructure of transport becomes crucial (Ebinger and
of rail tracks in km/Total (Negative) (General) Vandycke, 2015). This indicator focused on
geographical area in accessibility and connectivity, which are essential
sq. km {(2016-17+2018- in regions that are exposed to climate and
19)/2019} disaster risks, to allow for relocation and provide
support services. It also gave some idea of
the overall development of a region, because
with better connectivity comes better access
to markets, essential services, a potential for
industrialisation, etc.

The density Total number of health Adaptive Institution and The availability of doctors and health care
of health care care workers (doctors, Capacity infrastructure specialists at medical institutions represents
workers dental, nurses, pharma (Negative) (Health) the functionality of these institutions. Access to
ancillary, and traditional functional health care infrastructure is essential
health care workers per for the overall health and well-being of a
1,00,000 population (2016) community (IHCAP, 2019).

Vector-borne Cases of VBD (dengue, Sensitivity Biophysical (Health) Temperature and rainfall variations can foster
diseases chikungunya, kala-azar, (Positive) higher VBD occurrence (Dhiman, et. al., 2010).
(VBD) acute encephalitis
syndrome, Japanese
encephalitis, malaria) per
1,000 population (2018)

Water-borne Cases of WBD (cholera, Sensitivity Biophysical (Health) Lack of proper drainage, high incidence of open
diseases typhoid, acute diarrhoea) (Positive) defecation, and frequent occurrence of floods
(WBD) per 1,000 population lead to an increase in exposure to waterborne
(2018) pathogens (Rastogi, 2019).

12
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

1.2. Composite vulnerability equally distributed. From a policymaking perspective,

this means all states have to deal with concerns
indices (VI) of Indian states related to climate vulnerability.
In this section the VIs developed for the states are The highest VI was obtained for Jharkhand (0.67) and
presented and compared along with an assessment of the lowest for Maharashtra (0.42). The ranking of
drivers of vulnerability. Theoretically, VIs lie between states based on VI values is given in Figure 4. It’s worth
0 and 1; 0 being the lowest possible VI and 1 the mentioning that VIs are relative measures and that it
highest. does not imply that Maharashtra is not vulnerable in
an absolute sense. It should also be noted that this
1.2.1. Vulnerability ranking of 29 vulnerability ranking is based on a set of indicators
states that were used in this assessment with a specific
objective. These indicators predominantly focused
VI estimates show that the lowest value of a VI for on socio-economic drivers as well as those related
the states obtained in this analysis is 0.42, i.e., even to primary sector-based livelihood along with some
relatively less vulnerable states have high VI scores. biophysical and institutional factors. Thus, rankings
This also implies that all 29 states are significantly may be different with the change in objective of an
vulnerable. Further, the values of VIs of states vary assessment and a change in indicators.
over a small range (0.42-0.67) and are more or less

Figure 4: Vulnerability indices of the Indian states, their categorisation, and corresponding ranks

1.3. Categorisation of states based •• Relatively highly vulnerable states (VI: 0.58-
0.67): Jharkhand, Mizoram, Orissa, Chhattisgarh,
on Vulnerability Indices Assam, Bihar, Arunachal Pradesh, and West
Bengal (8 states).
1.3.1. Range-based categorisation of the
•• Relatively moderately vulnerable states (VI:
states 0.50-0.58): Uttar Pradesh, Tripura, Gujarat,
The value of VI for Indian states suggests that all states Meghalaya, Erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir,
are vulnerable to climate risks, but some are relatively Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Andhra
more. Grouping of states helps to get a better idea of Pradesh, and Karnataka, (10 states).
different categories of states in the context of the VI •• Relatively low vulnerable states (VI: 0.42- 0.50):
range. As mentioned earlier, VI values range between Himachal Pradesh, Telangana, Sikkim, Punjab,
0.42 – 0.67: the range may be divided into three equal Uttarakhand, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Kerala,
intervals to obtain the following categories (Table 3): Nagaland, Goa, and Maharashtra (11 states).

13
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

1.3.2. Quartile-based categorizsation of Bengal are situated in the ecologically fragile Eastern
states Himalayan Region. The location of most of these
states overlaps with disaster-prone areas according to
Under Quartile-based categorization, 29 states are multi-hazard maps prepared by the National Disaster
divided into four categories, i.e., Quartiles: each Management Authority (NDMA, 2016). This puts
category containing an equal number (7-8) of states those states in a doubly disadvantageous position.
according to their order of ranking. Quartile I contains
25% of the most vulnerable states and Quartile IV the 1.5. Major drivers of vulnerability
25% least vulnerable.
at state level
•• Top 25% most vulnerable states (Quartile I):
This group contains 8 most vulnerable states in Identification of major drivers of vulnerability is
India (resultant VI: ~0.58-67) perhaps the first step towards targeted adaptation
planning. It leads to a better understanding of the
•• Upper middle 25% vulnerable states (Quartile sources of vulnerability of a state and contributes to
II): This group contains 7 second most vulnerable developing targeted adaptation measures to address
states (resultant VI: ~0.52-0.58) specific indicators of sensitivity and adaptive capacity.
•• Lower middle 25% vulnerable states (Quartile For each state, indicators with normalised values
III): This group contains 7 vulnerable states after greater than or equal to 0.8 are identified as the
Quartile II (resultant VI: ~0.47-0.52) main drivers of vulnerability. Barring a few states, this
•• Bottom 25% vulnerable states (Quartile IV): resulted in ~3-4 most important drivers for each state.
This group contains 7 states with the lowest VIs The bar diagram in Figure 8 represents the frequency
(resultant VI: ~0.42-0.47) of an indicator that appears to be a driver across
states, i.e., the number of states for which a particular
The states in Quartile I coincide with the states in the driver is applicable. The list of drivers is provided in
‘relatively highly vulnerable category’ of states. The Table 4.
states in each quartile are represented in Table 3.
Notably, vulnerability is multidimensional because
1.4. Vulnerability maps many indicators appear to be drivers for a single state
in many cases. For states where more than 4 drivers
State-level vulnerability maps are developed to are identified, they are divided into 2 categories
provide a visual representation of the categories of – 3-4 major drivers and other drivers. The major
vulnerability (range-based: Figure 5, quartile-based: drivers of vulnerability across states include a lack
Figure 6, and vulnerability ranking-based: Figure of forest area per 1000 population leading to a lack
7). Geographically, most states with a relatively of alternative livelihood based on forest resources, a
high vulnerability form a cluster in the eastern part high proportion of area under rainfed agriculture, and
of the India. They are Jharkhand, Mizoram, Orissa, a lack of coverage of central crop insurance schemes.
Chhattisgarh, Assam, Bihar, Arunachal Pradesh, and All these indicators contribute to high vulnerability of
West Bengal. Among these states, Mizoram, Assam, the agricultural sector, further more than half of the
Arunachal Pradesh, and the hill districts of West Indian population depend on it.

14
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 3: Vulnerability Indices of states, their ranking, and categorisation

Vulnerability Relative Vulnerability Quartile (Q)-based categorisation of

Ranking
Indices Category the vulnerability of states

Jharkhand 0.674 1 High vulnerability Top 25% most vulnerable states (QI)

Mizoram 0.645 2 High vulnerability Top 25% most vulnerable states (QI)

Orissa 0.633 3 High vulnerability Top 25% most vulnerable states (QI)

Chhattisgarh 0.623 4 High vulnerability Top 25% most vulnerable states (QI)

Assam 0.620 5 High vulnerability Top 25% most vulnerable states (QI)

Bihar 0.614 6 High vulnerability Top 25% most vulnerable states (QI)

Arunachal Pradesh 0.594 7 High vulnerability Top 25% most vulnerable states (QI)

West Bengal 0.592 8 High vulnerability Top 25% most vulnerable states (QI)

Uttar Pradesh 0.582 9 Moderate vulnerability Upper-middle 25% vulnerable states (QII)

Tripura 0.571 10 Moderate vulnerability Upper-middle 25% vulnerable states (QII)

Gujarat 0.562 11 Moderate vulnerability Upper-middle 25% vulnerable states (QII)

Meghalaya 0.560 12 Moderate vulnerability Upper-middle 25% vulnerable states (QII)

Erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir 0.550 13 Moderate vulnerability Upper-middle 25% vulnerable states (QII)

Rajasthan 0.535 14 Moderate vulnerability Upper-middle 25% vulnerable states (QII)

Madhya Pradesh 0.528 15 Moderate vulnerability Upper-middle 25% vulnerable states (QII)

Manipur 0.520 16 Moderate vulnerability Lower-middle 25% vulnerable states (QIII)

Andhra Pradesh 0.510 17 Moderate vulnerability Lower-middle 25% vulnerable states (QIII)

Karnataka 0.503 18 Moderate vulnerability Lower-middle 25% vulnerable states (QIII)

Himachal Pradesh 0.486 19 Low vulnerability Lower-middle 25% vulnerable states (QIII)

Telangana 0.480 20 Low vulnerability Lower-middle 25% vulnerable states (QIII)

Sikkim 0.477 21 Low vulnerability Lower-middle 25% vulnerable states (QIII)

Punjab 0.472 22 Low vulnerability Lower-middle 25% vulnerable states (QIII)

Uttarakhand 0.468 23 Low vulnerability Bottom 25% vulnerable states (QIV)

Haryana 0.463 25 Low vulnerability Bottom 25% vulnerable states (QIV)

Tamil Nadu 0.462 24 Low vulnerability Bottom 25% vulnerable states (QIV)

Kerala 0.437 26 Low vulnerability Bottom 25% vulnerable states (QIV)

Nagaland 0.437 28 Low vulnerability Bottom 25% vulnerable states (QIV)

Goa 0.434 27 Low vulnerability Bottom 25% vulnerable states (QIV)

Maharashtra 0.419 29 Low vulnerability Bottom 25% vulnerable states (QIV)

15
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Punjab

Haryana
Erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir

Himachal Pradesh

Uttarakhand
.
Arunachal Pradesh
Sikkim
Meghalaya

Uttar Pradesh
Rajasthan Assam
Bihar Nagaland

Gujarat Madhya Pradesh Manipur

Tripura Mizoram
West Bengal
Orissa
Maharashtra Jharkhand

Telangana
Chhattisgarh

Goa Andhra
Pradesh
Karnataka

Tamil
Nadu
Kerala

Vulnerability Index
Relatively high vulnerable (8 states; 0.58-0.67)
Relatively moderate vulnerable (10 states; 0.50-0.58)
Relatively low vulnerable (11 states; 0.42-0.50)

500 250 0 500 Kilometers

Figure 5: Vulnerability profile of Indian states (based on the range of the vulnerability index): the range 0.67-0.42 is divided into
three equal lengths and states under each category are identified

16
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Punjab

Haryana
Erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir

Himachal Pradesh

Uttarakhand
.
Arunachal Pradesh
Sikkim
Meghalaya

Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh

Assam Nagaland
Bihar

Gujarat Manipur
Madhya Pradesh
Tripura Mizoram
West Bengal
Orissa
Maharashtra Jharkhand

Telangana Chhattisgarh

Goa
Andhra
Karnataka Pradesh

Tamil
Kerala Nadu

Vulnerability Index
Top 25% most vulnerable states (Quartile I; 8 states;0.58-0.67)
Upper middle 25% vulnerable states (Quartile II; 7 states; 0.52-0.58)
Lower middle 25% vulnerable states (Quartile III; 7 states; 0.47-0.52)
Bottom 25% vulnerable states (Quartile IV; 7 states; 0.42-0.47)

500 250 0 500 Kilometers

Figure 6: Vulnerability profile of Indian states (quartile based): all 29 states are divided into 4 categories, each containing 7-8
districts in the order of their vulnerability ranking

17
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Punjab

Haryana
Erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir

Himachal Pradesh

Uttarakhand
.
Arunachal Pradesh
Sikkim
Meghalaya

Uttar Pradesh
Rajasthan Assam
Bihar Nagaland

Gujarat Madhya Pradesh Manipur

Tripura Mizoram
West Bengal
Orissa
Maharashtra Jharkhand

Telangana
Chhattisgarh

Goa Andhra
Pradesh Vulnerability Ranking Manipur (0.520)
Karnataka
Jharkhand (0.674) Andhra Pradesh (0.510)
Mizoram (0.645) Karnataka (0.503)

Tamil Orissa (0.633) Himachal Pradesh (0.486)

Nadu Chhattisgarh (0.623) Telangana (0.480)
Kerala Assam (0.620) Sikkim (0.477)
Bihar (0.614) Punjab (0.472)
Arunachal Pradesh (0.594) Uttarakhand (0.468)
West Bengal (0.592) Haryana (0.463)
Uttar Pradesh (0.582) Tamil Nadu (0.462)
Tripura (0.571) Kerala (0.437)
Gujarat (0.562) Nagaland (0.437)
Meghalaya (0.560) Goa (0.434)
Erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir (0.550) Maharashtra (0.419)
Rajasthan (0.535)
Madhya Pradesh (0.528)
500 250 0 500 Kilometers

Figure 7: Vulnerability ranking of Indian states

18
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 8: Major drivers of vulnerability for all states

Table 4: Drivers of vulnerability for all states

States Ranking Drivers

Major drivers: High proportion of BPL population, prevalence of rainfed agriculture, and high incidence of
vector-borne diseases.
Jharkhand 1
Other drivers: Lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population, high yield-variability of food grains, low road
and rail density, low number of health care workers.
Major drivers: High yield-variability of food grains, very low coverage of crop insurance, prevalence of
rainfed agriculture, high incidence of vector-borne diseases.
Mizoram 2 Other drivers: High share of income from natural resources (agriculture and allied services), low road
density, and lack of railway network. Note, despite highest density of health care workers per thousand
population, less than 8% are doctors among them.
Major drivers: Prevalence of marginal and small landholdings, lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population,
Orissa 3
and high incidence of vector-borne diseases.
Major drivers: High proportion of BPL population, low road density and lack of railway network, low
Chhattisgarh 4
number of health care workers, and high incidence of vector-borne diseases.
Major drivers: Very low coverage of crop insurance, prevalence of rainfed agriculture, lack of forest area
Assam 5
per 1,000 rural population, and low number of health care workers.
Major drivers: Lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population, high yield-variability of food grains, and low
number of health care workers.
Bihar 6
Other drivers: High proportion of BPL population, prevalence of marginal and small landholdings, and lack
of women’s participation in workforce.
Major drivers: High proportion of natural resource-based income, very low coverage of crop insurance,
Arunachal lack of implementation of MGNREGA, low road density, and lack of rail network.
7
Pradesh
Other drivers: High proportion of BPL population and prevalence of Rainfed agriculture.

19
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

States Ranking Drivers

Major drivers: High proportion of natural resource-based income, prevalence of marginal and small
West Bengal 8 landholdings, lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population, lack of women’s participation in workforce,
and high incidence of water-borne diseases.
Uttar Major drivers: Prevalence of marginal and small landholdings, lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population,
9
Pradesh lack of women’s participation in workforce, and low number of health care workers.
Major rivers: Prevalence of marginal and small landholdings, very low coverage of crop insurance, high
Tripura 10
incidence of vector-borne diseases.
Gujarat 11 Major drivers: Lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population, low road density, and lack of railway network.
Major drivers: Very low coverage of crop insurance, low number of health care workers, high incidence of
Meghalaya 12
both water and vector-borne diseases.
Erstwhile
Major drivers: Prevalence of marginal and small landholdings, lack of women’s participation in workforce,
Jammu and 13
low road density, lack of railway network, and high incidence of water-borne diseases.
Kashmir
Major drivers: Low dependence on horticulture, especially perennial fruit trees in agriculture, lack of
Rajasthan 14 forest area per 1,000 rural population, and low number of health care workers.
Other drivers: high yield-variability of food grains, low road density, and lack of railway network.
Madhya Major drivers: High proportion of natural resource-based income, high yield-variability of food grains, lack
15
Pradesh of forest area per 1,000 rural population, and low number of health care workers.
Major drivers: High proportion of BPL population, very low coverage of crop insurance and prevalence of
Manipur 16
rainfed agriculture.
Andhra
17 Major drivers: Lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population and high incidence of water-borne diseases.
Pradesh
Karnataka 18 Major drivers: Lower availability of forest area per 1,000 rural population.
Himachal
19 Major drivers: Prevalence of rainfed agriculture and high incidence of water-borne diseases.
Pradesh
Telangana 20 Major drivers: Lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population.
Major drivers: Low dependence on horticulture, especially perennial fruit trees in agriculture, prevalence
Sikkim 21
of rainfed agriculture, very low coverage of crop insurance, and high incidence of water-borne diseases.
Major drivers: Low dependence on horticulture, especially perennial fruit trees in agriculture, very low
Punjab 22 coverage of crop insurance, lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population, and lack of women’s participation
in workforce.
Uttarakhand 23 Major drivers: Prevalence of marginal and small landholdings, very low coverage of crop insurance
Major drivers: Low dependence on horticulture trees, lack of forest area per 1,000 rural populations, and
Haryana 24
lack of women’s participation in workforce.
Major drivers: High yield-variability of food grains, prevalence of marginal and small landholdings, and lack
Tamil Nadu 25
of forest area per 1,000 rural population.
Major drivers: Prevalence of marginal and small landholdings and low coverage of crop insurance,
Kerala 26 Other drivers: Prevalence of Rainfed agriculture, lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population, and lack of
women’s participation in workforce.
Nagaland 27 Major drivers: Very low coverage of crop insurance and prevalence of rainfed agriculture.
Goa 28 Major drivers: Low coverage of crop insurance.
Maharashtra 29 Major drivers: Prevalence of rainfed agriculture and lack of forest area per 1,000 rural population.

20
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

1.5.1. Drivers in relatively highly vulnerable with a strong presence of both vector-borne and
states (Jharkhand, Mizoram, Orissa, water-borne diseases and lack of health care
workers, shows a high degree of vulnerability in
Chhattisgarh, Assam, Bihar, Arunachal this respect.
Pradesh, and West Bengal)
•• What makes these states relatively less
•• States with relatively high vulnerability are mostly vulnerable than the most vulnerable states is the
poor states with a low per capita income and fact that a number of these states were able to
low Human Development Index, indicating a low develop some adaptive capacity in terms of a
overall adaptive capacity (Reserve Bank of India, relatively low incidence of BPL population, better
2018). implementation of MGNREGA, and considerable
•• A lack of forest cover, high sensitivity of the health road-rail network density.
sector (disease prevalence) coupled with a low 1.5.3. Major drivers of vulnerability in
adaptive capacity due to a lack of health care relatively low vulnerable states (Himachal
workers are the major drivers of vulnerability in
these states.
Pradesh, Telangana, Sikkim, Punjab,
Uttarakhand, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Kerala,
•• This is followed by a high percentage of BPL
population, the prevalence of rainfed agriculture, Nagaland, Goa, Maharashtra)
and a lack of crop insurance, compounding •• Unlike in relatively high-vulnerable states, here
agricultural vulnerability. the drivers are limited.
•• Moreover, in many cases, vulnerability is •• They are mostly arising from a lack of forest area
multidimensional, and many indicators appear to per 1000 population, lack of crop insurance, and
be drivers of vulnerability for some states. the prevalence of rainfed agriculture.
•• The multidimensionality of vulnerability is •• There is a relatively low BPL population in these
evident in, for example, the most vulnerable states. Other than Nagaland and Maharashtra,
states Jharkhand, Mizoram, and Bihar. They have the proportion of the BPL population here is less
multiple drivers of vulnerability (6-7 for each than the national average (~20%). This gives a
state) encompassing biophysical, socio-economic, good prospect for building adaptive capacity to
livelihood, and institutional and infrastructure- cope with any climatic hazard for limited numbers
based indicators. They perform relatively poorly of households with a very poor resource base in
with respect to many indicators, especially these states.
those capturing institutional development and
infrastructure, which play important roles in •• States in this category do not depend much on
building adaptive capacity. natural resources for income generation.
•• They have an adaptive capacity through better
1.5.2. Drivers of vulnerability in relatively functionality of institutions. This is reflected in
moderately vulnerable states (Uttar a relatively higher rate of implementation of
Pradesh, Tripura, Gujarat, Meghalaya, MGNREGA, a high road density and extensive
Erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, railway network, a greater number of health
Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, care workers per 1000 population, and a low
prevalence of vector-borne diseases. Only two
and Karnataka) states (Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh) have a
•• The lack of forest area per 1000 rural population health indicator (WBD) as a driver of vulnerability.
remains one of the major drivers of vulnerability One significant observation is that in these states, the
in these states. While in Gujarat and Rajasthan overall vulnerability is lower not because they have
it may not be biophysically possible to have a a smaller number of drivers, but because they have
high forest cover, in states such as Uttar Pradesh, many indicators in which they performed extremely
Madhya Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh a higher well. For example, one notable reason for a relatively
forest cover could be achieved. low VI for Maharashtra is the presence of cities such
•• At least one in three health indicators is also a as Mumbai and Pune that significantly contributed to
driver of vulnerability in this category. Meghalaya, the state’s GSDP. This means that a low proportion of

21
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

GSDP is coming from the primary/ agricultural sector almost no marginal and small farmers, but a high
there. Also, it is a state that has excelled in institutional forest cover per 1000 population and the highest
development along with a good implementation of female workforce participation in the country. It also
MGNREGA and a low vulnerability of the health sector. performs well in the health sector. The sensitivity
Even so, not all parts of the state are less vulnerable, to water and vector-borne diseases is low, while it
especially the drought-prone districts of Marathwada also has a moderate adaptive capacity through the
and Vidarbha. Maharashtra also has a severe availability of health workers.
agricultural vulnerability. A Central Research Institute
for Dryland Agriculture study (CRIDA, 2019) reported 1.6. Use of state-level
that a large number of districts in the state suffer from
a major agricultural vulnerability. The present report vulnerability assessment
also found a high prevalence of rainfed agriculture Assessing vulnerability is important as it provides
as one of the major drivers of vulnerability there. In information on measures to be taken to adapt to
addition, on the one hand, this state is drought-prone climate change. Hence, a vulnerability assessment is
(it was one of nine Indian states to have been officially the first step in adaptation planning. The purpose is
declared drought-prone in 2015), and on the other, to measure the comparable degrees of vulnerability
only 18% of its net cultivation area is under irrigation. for all Indian states for prioritization of the states for
Nagaland, in turn, is highly dependent on natural- climate change adaptation planning and investment.
resource based income generation. It also almost The analysis also helps the states in understanding
entirely depends on rainfed agriculture, with no the major drivers of vulnerability and target the
institutional crop insurance in place. Interestingly, adaptation actions accordingly. The use of the report
these along with certain other institutional has been discussed in a more detailed manner in the
mechanisms have led to a lower VI. The state has final chapter of the report.

22
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Part II:
District-level
vulnerability profile
of India

23
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Part II:
District-level vulnerability profile of India
The objective of Part II of the report is to carry out a These indicators comprised:
current-climate district-level vulnerability assessment
for India based on the starting point/contextual •• Socio-economic and livelihood-based indicators:
approach. Based on the vulnerability indices (VI) Percentage of households having monthly income
derived for each district in India, the study identifies of the highest-earning member less than Rs.
and categorises the most vulnerable districts and 5000/- in rural areas, the livestock to human ratio,
the major drivers of vulnerability. Identification of the proportion of marginal and small landholders,
the most vulnerable districts along with the drivers women’s participation in the workforce, the
is an essential first step for prioritizing investment percentage of net sown area under horticulture,
in climate-adaptation at the district level. The and the female literacy rate.
assessment is based on 612 districts, which covers •• Biophysical indicators: The yield variability of
the same geographical area as the current 718 food grains, the proportion of area under rainfed
districts; some of the recent bifurcations of districts agriculture, and the forest area per 100 rural
could not be taken into consideration due to lack of population.
availability of data for the indicators. The objectives •• Institution and infrastructure related indicators:
could be summarised as follows: a) develop a current The road density, the area covered under centrally
climate district-level vulnerability profile for India, b) funded crop insurance schemes (PMFBY and
categorise the districts into relatively high, moderate, RWBCIS), the implementation of the MGNREGA,
and relatively low vulnerable, c) identify states with the the health infrastructure per 1000 population,
prevalence of a large number of vulnerable districts, and the percentage of households with an
d) identify the major drivers of the vulnerability for improved drinking water source.
each of the districts.

This all-India district level analysis is also carried out

2.2. District-level vulnerability
by the research team at IIT Mandi, IIT Guwahati and indices
IISc Bengaluru and the outcomes were subsequently
discussed in the states in the dissemination meeting. VIs are found to range between 0.75 (Karimganj in
Assam) to 0.34 (Lahul & Spiti in Himachal Pradesh).
Since the VIs can theoretically lie between 0 and 1,
2.1. Indicators used in district-level with 0 the lowest possible VI and 1 the highest, this
assessment indicates all districts in India are vulnerable. None
of the districts exhibit vulnerability as low as 0.2
A set of 14 indicators of vulnerability was used in the or 0.1, in fact not even less than 0.3. The values of
assessment capturing both ‘sensitivity’ and ‘adaptive VIs vary over a small range of 0.34-0.75. Also, VIs of
capacity’ of the districts with respect to current two districts consecutively ranked according to their
climate risks. These 14 indicators are not exactly vulnerability do not differ much. This means that,
that same as what have been used for the state-level from a policy-making perspective, all districts have
analysis given non-availability of data at district-level. to deal with concerns related to vulnerability. The
Table 5 presents a list of indicators along with the ranking of 50 most vulnerable districts based on VI
rationale behind their inclusion in the assessment. values is represented in Table 6. 100 and 200 most
The source of data is provided in Appendix_Table 5 in vulnerable districts are presented in Figure 9. A list
detailed manner. of all districts along with their VI and corresponding
ranking is presented in Appendix_Table 6.

24
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 5: List of indicators, construction of indicators, their dimensions and category, and rationale behind the
selection of the indicator

Category
Indicators Construction Dimension (sector in Rationale for selection
parenthesis)
Depending on the
Percentage of
different parameters, Households in this category generally represent the
households
the Census of India poorest ones. In a bigger household with only one
having
categorises households earning member poverty may also prevail, even if
monthly
according to their Socio- he/she earns more than Rs. 5000/-. Yet, this is the
income of
earnings. One category Sensitivity economic best available income-related indicator that may be
highest-
is the percentage of (Positive) and livelihood found at district level in India. People with extremely
earning
households having a (General) low incomes are among the most vulnerable for they
members
monthly income of the have little or no financial capital. So, they have the
less than Rs.
highest-earning member least capacity to adapt to impacts of climate risks
5,000/- in the
in a rural area of less than (O’Brien, 2008)
rural area
Rs. 5000 (2011)
Livestock acts as an alternative source of income/
asset. Agricultural loss due to climate events can be
Socio-
Total number of livestock, Adaptive compensated by income earned from livestock. It is
Livestock to economic
equivalence applied/ Capacity also an important asset that can be sold in times of
human ratio and livelihood
Population (2019/2011) (Negative) need. By helping in compensating losses livestock
(Agriculture)
contributes to the reduction of vulnerability (IHCAP,
2019)
Marginal and smallholder farmers experience
Number of marginal and immediate hardship in face of any climatic hazard.
Proportion Socio-
small operational holders They are unable to make adequate decisions about
of marginal Sensitivity economic
(up to 2 hectares)/ Total when to sow, what to grow, and how-to time inputs.
and small (Positive) and livelihood
number of operational They have a low adaptive capacity (Sathyan, et. al.,
landholders (Agriculture)
landholders (2011-12) 2018). They also find it difficult to cope with the high
food price of fluctuations (Aryal, et al., 2020)
Women are known to be more sensitive to climate
risks. As gender inequality remains a major barrier
to human development, women’s participation
Women’s Socio- in the labour market is an important indicator
Percentage of women Adaptive
participation economic of gender equality (HDR, 2019) That is to say,
in the overall workforce Capacity
in the and livelihood regions with a more women in gainful employment
(2011). (Negative)
workforce (General) would signify (some degree of) gender equality,
enhanced purchasing power, and independence.
Consequently, such working women are likely less
vulnerable to climate change
Forests are an important source of alternative
Forest area Area of total forest in km2 Adaptive livelihood and food through the extraction of NTFPs.
Biophysical
per 100 rural per 100 rural population Capacity Forests also provide essential ecosystem services for
(Forest)
population (2019/2011) (Negative) the sustainable productivity of rural economies and
building of adaptive capacity (IHCAP, 2019).
Rainfed agriculture is highly sensitive to the vagaries
of weather. Lack of irrigation indicates a lack of
The area (Net sown area - Net
Sensitivity Biophysical adaptive capacity to mitigate the impacts of climate
under rainfed irrigated area)/Net sown
(Positive) (Agriculture) risks, leading to increased crop loss and reduced
agriculture area. (2015-16)
income of households dependent on rainfed
agriculture (Rani, et. al., 2011)
Horticulture trees are hardy and more resilient to
Proportion Socio- climate variations compared to field crops. They
Net sown area under Adaptive
of net sown economic provide alternative income sources to agriculture.
horticultural/ Net sown Capacity
area under and livelihood Once established, they are far less sensitive to
area (2017-17) (Negative)
horticulture (Agricultural) the impacts of climate risks, particularly rainfall
variability and droughts (IHCAP, 2019)

25
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Category
Indicator Construction Dimension (sector in Rationale for selection
parenthesis)
A high variability in crop yields indicates fluctuations
Coefficient of Variation
in agro-climatic conditions. The agriculture sector
Yield (i.e., Standard Deviation/
Sensitivity Biophysical is extremely sensitive to climate fluxes, particularly
variability of arithmetic mean) of major
(Positive) (Agriculture) rainfall variability (delayed rainfall, dry spells,
food grains food grains over a period
drought, extreme rainfall, and floods) and this
(2006-2018)
indicator captures this sensitivity (Davis, et. al., 2019)
Under extreme weather events, the role of transport
becomes crucial (Ebinger and Vandycke, 2015). This
indicator focused on accessibility and connectivity,
Sum of the length of which are essential in regions that are exposed to
Adaptive Institution and
surface road (in km)/ climate and disaster risks to allow for relocation and
Road density Capacity infrastructure
Total geographical area (in provide support services. It also gave some idea of
(Negative) (General)
km2). ((2011/2019) the overall development of a region, because with
better connectivity comes better access to markets,
essential services, a potential for industrialisation,
etc.
MGNREGA as an alternative source of income helps
in building adaptive capacity, particularly in dealing
with unforeseen hazards (Adam, 2014). It acts as
Average days of
a safety net, by providing any adult member of a
employment provided Adaptive Institution and
household registered under the scheme with 100
MGNREGA per household under Capacity infrastructure
days of non-climate sensitive wage labour a year and
MGNREGA in a year (Negative) (General)
150 days in case of hazards such as droughts, floods,
(2018-19)
cyclones, and hail This provides households with a
menial but essential source of additional income to
help them tide over the impacts of hazards
Crop insurance helps farming households mitigate
losses caused by climate risks. This enhances
Area covered [Crop area insured under Adaptive Institution and their adaptive capacity (Swain, 2014). The risk and
under crop PMFBY)and RWBCIS/ Net Capacity infrastructure insurance market to promote adaptation to climate
insurance sown area] *100 (2019) (Negative) (Agriculture) change in the agriculture sector is still not fully
developed in South-Asian countries (Aryal, et. al.,
2020)
Total number of
functional health centres
Health
(Sub centres, PHCs, CHCs, Adaptive Institution and Access to functional health care infrastructure is
infrastructure
HWCSC, HWC-PHCs, Capacity infrastructure essential for the overall health and wellbeing of a
per 1000
Sub-divisional hospitals, (Negative) (Health) community (IHCAP, 2019).
population
district hospitals) per 1000
population (2019)
The literacy rate has a direct relation to reducing
vulnerability. As the number of literate women
increases, better ways for livelihood will be adopted
(Number of literate Socio- (IHCAP, 2019). In a correlation analysis for this
Adaptive
Female literacy women divided by the economic assessment, it was also found that female literacy
Capacity
rate total number of literate and livelihood is significantly positively correlated with low infant
(Negative)
people) *100 (2015-16) (General) mortality rate, better sanitation facilities, etc. It
has also been checked that the indicator is not
correlated with women's participation in the labour
force.
% of Access to contaminated drinking water enhances
households the risk of diseases such as cholera, typhoid, and
Percentage of households Adaptive Institution and
with an exposure to other waterborne pathogens. Therefore,
with proper drinking water Capacity infrastructure
improved potable and improved drinking water reduces health
facility (2015-16) (Negative) (Health)
drinking water vulnerability substantially, particularly of children
source (Germanwatch, 2019).

26
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 6: Vulnerability Indices, ranking, and the major drivers of vulnerability for 50 most vulnerable districts

Districts States VI Rank Drivers of vulnerability

Rainfed agriculture, lack of crop insurance, small area under horticulture, lack
Karimganj Assam 0.753 1
of improved drinking water sources
Yield variability of food grains, small area under horticulture, low forest area,
Goalpara Assam 0.752 2
lack of implementation of MGNREGA
Dhubri Assam 0.734 3 Rainfed agriculture, small area under horticulture, low forest area
Darrang Assam 0.732 4 Yield variability of food grains, small area under horticulture, low forest area
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, low
Katihar Bihar 0.725 5
forest area
Rainfed agriculture, yield variability of food grains, lack of crop insurance, low
Sonitpur Assam 0.720 6
forest area, low road density
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, small
Araria Bihar 0.707 7
area under horticulture, low forest area
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, low
Kishanganj Bihar 0.707 8
forest area
Rainfed agriculture, yield variability of food grains, lack of crop insurance, low
Golaghat Assam 0.707 9
forest area, lack of implementation of MGNREGA
Cachar Assam 0.703 10 Rainfed agriculture
Barpeta Assam 0.703 11 Yield variability of food grains, small area under horticulture, low forest area
Marginal and small operational holdings, yield variability of food grains, lack
Purnia Bihar 0.701 12
of crop insurance, low forest area
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, lack of
Jamui Bihar 0.700 13
area under horticulture, low forest area
Low household income, marginal and small operational landholding, rainfed
Nuapada Orissa 0.699 14 agriculture, lack of area under horticulture, lack of women’s participation in
workforce, low road density
Marginal and small operational landholdings, yield variability of food grains,
Kokrajhar Assam 0.699 15
low road density
Sahibganj Jharkhand 0.696 16 Rainfed agriculture, small area under horticulture, low forest area
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, small
Sheohar Bihar 0.694 17
area under horticulture, low forest area
Rainfed agriculture, yield variability of food grains, lack of crop insurance,
Tinsukia Assam 0.693 18
lack of implementation of MGNREGA
Rainfed agriculture, yield variability of food grains, small area under
Baksa Assam 0.690 19
horticulture, low forest area, low road density
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance,
Perambalur Tamil Nadu 0.688 20 small area under horticulture, low forest area, lack of implementation of
MGNREGA
Rainfed agriculture, yield variability of food grains, low forest area, low road
Morigaon Assam 0.688 21
density
Marginal and small operational landholdings, small area under horticulture,
Ariyalur Tamil Nadu 0.686 22
low forest area, lack of implementation of MGNREGA
Rainfed agriculture, lack of crop insurance, small area under horticulture,
Dibrugarh Assam 0.685 23
lack of implementation of MGNREGA
Rainfed agriculture, lack of crop insurance, small area under horticulture, low
Sivasagar Assam 0.685 24
forest area, lack of implementation of MGNREGA
Rainfed agriculture, high yield variability of food grains, low average person
Hailakandi Assam 0.684 25
days per household employed under MGNREGA

27
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Districts States VI Rank Drivers of vulnerability

Low percentage of net sown area under horticulture, low forest area per 100
Nagaon Assam 0.683 26
rural population
Marginal and small landholdings, lack of crop insurance, small area under
Cooch Bihar West Bengal 0.681 27
horticulture, low forest area
Marginal and small operational landholders, lack of crop insurance, low
Madhepura Bihar 0.680 28
forest area, lack of health infrastructure
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, small
Jalpaiguri West Bengal 0.679 29
area under horticulture
Marginal and small operational landholdings, small area under horticulture,
Bahraich UP 0.676 30
low forest area
Low household income, marginal and small operational landholdings, lack
Purulia West Bengal 0.676 31 of crop insurance, small area under horticulture, low forest area, low road
density
Rainfed agriculture, yield variability of food grains, small area under
Lakhimpur Assam 0.673 32
horticulture, low forest area
Marginal and small operational landholdings, yield variability of food grains,
Purba Champaran Bihar 0.673 33
lack of crop insurance, low forest area
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, small
Lakhisarai Bihar 0.672 34
area under horticulture, low forest area
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, low
Siwan Bihar 0.669 35
forest area, low road density
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, low
Sitamarhi Bihar 0.668 36
forest area, lack of health infrastructure
Jammu & Marginal and small operational landholdings, rainfed agriculture, lack of crop
Ramban 0.665 37
Kashmir insurance, small area under horticulture, low road density
Rainfed agriculture, lack of crop insurance, small area under horticulture,
Bishnupur Manipur 0.665 38
low forest area
Mewat Nuh) Haryana 0.663 39 Small area under horticulture, low forest area
Marginal and small operational landholdings, yield variability of food grains,
Ramanathapuram Tamil Nadu 0.663 40
low livestock to human ratio, small area under horticulture, low forest area
Jorhat Assam 0.663 41 Rainfed agriculture, low forest area
Chirang Assam 0.662 42 Rainfed agriculture, low road density
Nayagarh Orissa 0.661 43 Low household income, rainfed agriculture, small area under horticulture
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, low
Khagaria Bihar 0.660 44
forest area, low road density
Marginal and small operational landholding, lack of crop insurance, low
Gopalganj Bihar 0.659 45
forest area, low road density
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, low
Madhubani Bihar 0.659 46
forest area, low road density
Udalguri Assam 0.659 47 Yield variability of food grains, low forest area, low road density
Marginal and small operational landholdings, lack of crop insurance, small
Balrampur UP 0.659 48
area under horticulture, low forest area, low road density
Marginal and small operational landholdings, small area under horticulture,
Giridih Jharkhand 0.657 49
low forest area, low road density
Nandurbar Maharashtra 0.656 50 Lack of crop insurance, small area under horticulture
Buxar Bihar 0.656 51 Lack of crop insurance, lack of forest area and low road density

28
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

2.2.1. Categorisation of districts based on VI •• Decile VII: 60% - 70% vulnerable districts
(the resultant VI range: ~0.53-0.55; 61 districts)
The assessment clearly shows that all districts in India
•• Decile VIII: 70% - 80% vulnerable districts
are vulnerable to climate risks, but some are relatively
(the resultant VI range: ~ 0.51-0.53; 61 districts)
more vulnerable. Grouping of districts helps to identify
sets of districts falling under a specific category of •• Decile IX: 80% - 90% vulnerable districts
vulnerability (relatively low, relatively high, etc.). In the (the resultant VI range: ~0.48-0.51; 61 districts)
present assessment, the districts were categorised in •• Decile X: 10% least vulnerable districts
the following three different ways: (the resultant VI range: ~ 0.34-0.48; 62 districts)
2.2.1.1. Quartile-based categorisation 2.2.1.3. Range-based categorisation

612 districts were divided into four categories based The range of VIs (0.34-0.75) was then divided
on Quartiles. Each category contains an equal number into five equal intervals, and districts within each
(153) of districts, placed in order of ranking. interval were identified. This representation led to
an uneven distribution of districts across groups, but
•• Top 25% most vulnerable districts (Quartile I): it is useful to identify districts with a relatively very
This group contains 153 most vulnerable districts high vulnerability. Also, this categorisation places
in India; the resultant range of VI is ~0.61-0.75. districts on a relative scale: a district in the category of
•• Upper middle 25% vulnerable districts (Quartile ‘relatively very low vulnerability’ does not necessarily
II): This group contains 153 second most have an absolute vulnerability that is also low.
vulnerable districts; the resultant range of VI is
The distribution of districts went as follows:
~0.56-0.61.
•• Lower middle 25% vulnerable districts (Quartile •• Relatively very highly vulnerable districts: VI
III): This group contains 153 vulnerable districts range: 0.67-0.75; 34 districts
after Quartile II; the resultant range of VI for this •• Relatively highly vulnerable districts: VI range:
group is ~0.51-0.56. 0.59-0.67; 188 districts.
•• The bottom 25% vulnerable districts (Quartile IV): •• Relatively moderately vulnerable districts: VI
This group contains 153 districts with the lowest VIs, range: 0.51- 0.59; 258 districts.
the resultant range of VI for this group is ~0.34-0.51.
•• Relatively low vulnerable districts: VI range:
However, dropping seven major cities form the 0.43-0.51; 120 districts.
analysis results in some alteration of this distribution.
•• Relatively very low vulnerable districts: VI range:
2.2.1.2. Decile-based categorisation 0.34-0.43; 12 districts.

The 612 districts were also divided into 10 categories, 2.3. Vulnerability maps
Deciles, each category containing an equal number
(61 or 62) of districts. District-level vulnerability maps are developed to
provide a visual representation of the categorisation
•• Decile I: 10% most vulnerable districts of districts based on Quartile, Decile, and Range
(the resultant VI range: ~0.65-0.75; 62 districts) divisions. Figure 9 shows the geographical location
•• Decile II: 10% - 20% vulnerable districts and spread of the 100 and 200 most vulnerable
(the resultant VI range: ~0.62-0.65; 61 districts districts in India. Most districts in the category of
100 most vulnerable districts in India are in Assam
•• Decile III: 20% - 30% vulnerable districts (24 districts), Bihar (23 districts), and Jharkhand (11
(the resultant VI range: ~0.60-0.62; 61 districts) districts). Other than that, Uttar Pradesh (8 districts),
•• Decile IV: 30% - 40% vulnerable districts Orissa (7 districts), Madhya Pradesh (6 districts),
(the resultant VI range: ~0.58-0.60; 61 districts) Maharashtra, and West Bengal (5 districts each). In
•• Decile V: 40% - 50% vulnerable districts the Indian Himalayan Region, 4 districts in Jammu
(the resultant VI range: ~0.56-0.58; 61 districts) and Kashmir in the western part and 1 district each
in Mizoram and Manipur in the eastern part also fall
•• Decile VI: 50% - 60% vulnerable districts under this category. Finally, 3 districts in Tamil Nadu
(the resultant VI range: ~ 0.55-0.56; 61 districts) and 1 in Haryana and Telangana each belong to this

29
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

group. Geographically, most of these 100 districts are have very different characteristics with regard to
in the Indo-Gangetic plain and the Brahmaputra river population density, cost of living, and infrastructure,
basin. Both areas are flood prone. The spread of the another map (Figure 11) has been presented. It omits
next 100 vulnerable districts is found in central India, 7 major cities1 (going by 2014 data), namely, Mumbai
Orissa and Maharashtra, as also in other states. Urban, Chennai, Ahmedabad (including Bhavnagar),
Bengaluru Urban, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Pune.
Maps based on Quartiles, Deciles, and ranges (Figure Delhi, as a Union Territory, has not been considered
10, Figure 12, Figure 13, respectively) have been in the present study.
developed with Arc-GIS. Since metropolitan cities

Punjab
Erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir

Himachal Pradesh
. Punjab
Erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir

Himachal Pradesh
.
Uttarakhand Arunachal Pradesh Uttarakhand Arunachal Pradesh
Haryana Haryana
Rajasthan Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh Sikkim Uttar Pradesh Sikkim
Assam Assam
Bihar Bihar

Gujarat Nagaland Gujarat Nagaland

Meghalaya Meghalaya

Manipur Manipur
Tripura Tripura

West Bengal Mizoram West Bengal Mizoram

Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh

Jharkhand Jharkhand
Orissa Orissa
Maharashtra Maharashtra
Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh

Telangana Telangana

Goa Andhra Pradesh Goa Andhra Pradesh

Karnataka Karnataka

Kerala Kerala

Tamil Nadu State Boundary Tamil Nadu State Boundary

District Boundary District Boundary
Top 100 most vulnerable districts Top 100 most vulnerable districts
101-200th most vulnerable districts

440 220 0 440 Kilometers 440 220 0 440 Kilometers

Figure 9: 100 most vulnerable districts (left panel) and 200 most vulnerable districts (right panel) in India

1 Since 2014, all previous classifications of cities have been revised to consider the categorisation made by the 6th Central Pay Commission. The previous
classification of A-1, A, B-1, B2, C has been mapped as: A1 to X, A, B1 and B2 to Y and C and unclassified to Z. Ref: Department of Expenditure, 2008,
https://dispur.nic.in/sixthpay/sixth-pay-allowances.pdf

30
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Punjab
Erstwhile
Jammu and Kashmir

Himachal Pradesh

Uttarakhand
.
Arunachal
Haryana Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh Sikkim
Rajasthan
Assam
Bihar

Nagaland
Gujarat
Meghalaya Manipur

Mizoram
Tripua
West
Bengal
Madhya Pradesh Jharkhand
Orissa
Maharashtra Chhattisgarh

Telangana
Goa
Andhra
Karnataka Pradesh

Tamil
Nadu
Keralla

State Boundary
District Boundary
Vulnerability Index
Top 25 % most vulnerable districts (Quartile I; 153 districts; 0.61-0.75)
Upper middle 25% vulnerable districts (Quartile II; 153 districts; 0.56-0.61)
Lower middle 25% vulnerable districts (Quartile III; 153 districts; 0.51-0.56)
Bottom 25% vulnerable districts (Quartile IV; 153 districts; 0.34-0.51)

440 220 0 440 Kilometers

Figure 10: District-level vulnerability profile of India based on four Quartiles (Quartile I includes the 25% most vulnerable districts
and Quartile IV includes the bottom 25% vulnerable districts)

31
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir

.
Himachal Pradesh
Punjab
Uttarakhand Arunachal Pradesh
Haryana
Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Sikkim
Assam
Bihar

Gujarat Nagaland
Meghalaya

Manipur
Tripura

West Bengal Mizoram

Madhya Pradesh Jharkhand

Orissa
Maharashtra
Chhattisgarh

Telangana

Andhra Pradesh
Goa

Karnataka

Kerala

Tamil Nadu
State Boundary
District Boundary
Vulnerability Index
Cities (7)
Top 25% most vulnerable districts (Quartile I; 152 districts; 0.61-0.75)
Upper middle 25% vulnerable districts (Quartile II; 151 districts; 0.56-0.61)
Lower middle 25% vulnerable districts (Quartile III; 151 districts; 0.51-0.56)
Bottom 25% vulnerable districts (Quartile IV; 151 districts; 0.34-0.51)

440 220 0 440 Kilometers

Figure 11: District-level vulnerability profile of India based on four Quartiles excluding seven major cities (Quartile I includes the
top 25% most vulnerable districts and Quartile IV includes the bottom 25% vulnerable districts)

32
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Punjab
Erstwhile
Jammu and Kashmir

Himachal Pradesh

Uttarakhand
.
Arunachal
Haryana Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh Sikkim
Rajasthan
Assam
Bihar

Nagaland
Gujarat
Meghalaya Manipur

Mizoram
Tripua
West
Bengal
Madhya Pradesh Jharkhand
Orissa
Maharashtra Chhattisgarh

Telangana
Goa
Andhra
Karnataka Pradesh

State Boundary
District Boundary
Keralla Vulnerability Index
Top 10% (Decile I; 62 districts; 0.65-0.75)
Tamil Nadu
10%-20% (Decile II; 61 districts; 0.62-0.65)
20%-30% (Decile III; 61 districts; 0.60-0.62)
30%-40% (Decile IV; 61 districts; 0.58-0.60)
40%-50% (Decile V; 61 districts; 0.56-0.58)
50%-60% (Decile VI; 61 districts; 0.55-0.56)
60%-70% (Decile VII; 61 districts; 0.53-0.55)
70%-80% (Decile VIII; 61 districts; 0.51-0.53)
80%-90% (Decile IX; 61 districts; 0.48-0.51)
Bottom 10% (Decile X; 62 districts; 0.34-0.48)
440 220 0 440 Kilometers

Figure 12: District-level vulnerability profile of India based on ten Deciles (Decile I includes the 10% most vulnerable districts and
Decile X includes the bottom 10% vulnerable districts)

33
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir

.
Himachal Pradesh
Punjab
Uttarakhand
Haryana Arunachal Pradesh
Rajasthan
Sikkim
Uttar Pradesh
Bihar Assam

Nagaland

Gujarat Manipur
Meghalaya

Mizoram
Tripura

West Bengal
Madhya Pradesh Jharkhand
Orissa
Maharashtra Chhattisgarh

Telangana

Goa Andhra Pradesh

Tamil Nadu
Karnataka
State Boundary
District Boundary
Kerala
All_districts
Vulnerability Index
Relatively Very High Vulnerable (34 districts; 0.67-0.75)
Relatively High Vulnerable (188 districts; 0.59-0.67)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (258 districts; 0.51-0.59)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (120 districts; 0.43-0.51)
Relatively Very Low Vulnerable (12 districts; 0.34-0.43)
330 165 0 330 Kilometers

Figure 13: District-level vulnerability profile of India where districts are grouped into five categories with VI ranges

34
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

2.4. Proportion of vulnerable than 50% falls in Quartile II, which increases the
overall vulnerability of the state.
districts in different states
Categorisation of districts also helps in the 2.5. Major drivers of vulnerability
identification of states with a high prevalence of in district-level assessment
vulnerable districts. Table 7 presents the distribution
of districts in each state in different Quartiles. A For the district-level assessment identification of
state with a large proportion of districts in Quartile I major drivers of vulnerability was also considered
requires high attention to adaptation planning. a basic step towards informed decision-making
for adaptation. It leads to a better understanding
The analysis shows that approximately 90% of of the sources of the vulnerability of a district and
districts in Assam, ~80% of districts in Bihar, and ~60% assists in developing targeted adaptation measures
of districts in Jharkhand fall in Quartile I. So, they to address specific indicators of sensitivity and/or
have a high level of vulnerability. In the state-level adaptive capacity. From each district, indicators with
vulnerability assessment, these three states were also normalised values greater than or equal to 0.85 were
in the highly vulnerable category. Other than these identified as the main drivers of vulnerability. Barring
three states, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, erstwhile a few states, this resulted in ~3 - 4 most important
Jammu and Kashmir, Maharashtra, Manipur, Orissa, drivers. The bar diagram in Figure 14 represents the
Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal also have more than number of districts for which a particular indicator is
50% districts in Quartiles I and II combined reflecting a major driver of vulnerability.
the high vulnerability of a large number of districts.
Other than Maharashtra, the rest of these states in Major drivers of vulnerability across the districts
the state-level vulnerability assessment were also included lack of area under horticulture (396 districts),
either in high or moderately vulnerable categories. lack of forest area per 100 of rural population
indicating lack of alternative livelihoods based on
A hypothesis presented in the state-level assessment forest products (336 districts), and lack of coverage of
on Maharashtra has been corroborated in this district- central crop insurance schemes (306 districts).
level assessment. The state-level report had observed
that the presence of cities such as Mumbai and Pune This indicates that a severe lack of adaptive capacity,
significantly contributed to the state’s GSDP leading especially of livelihood based on the primary sector,
to a relatively low vulnerability for Maharashtra is the main source of vulnerability in many districts in
at state level. It does not imply that all districts in India. When a climate hazard hits the primary sector,
the state have a low vulnerability, though. In the these districts will find it difficult to cope. It also shows
present assessment, over 50% of districts, especially that the major drivers are related to the agricultural
the drought-prone Ones were found to be highly sector particularly. It is the sector on which more than
vulnerable and were either Quartile I or II. half of the Indian population depends for livelihood.
A low road density, lack of irrigation facility (with a
While in the state-level assessment Mizoram and high proportion of rainfed area), and the prevalence
Chhattisgarh were found to be two of the most of small and marginal landholdings also contribute to
vulnerable states in the country, a relatively lower the vulnerability of more than 100 districts.
proportion of districts was found in Quartile I as per the
present analysis. One reason is that these two states 2.5.1. Major drivers in the districts in
have a relatively smaller number of districts. There are Quartile I
only eight districts in Mizoram with Lawngtlai (0.64) •• If the net sown area is considered, then
the most vulnerable and Kolasib (0.42) the least. This 109 districts out of the 153 most vulnerable
indicates that the VIs of the districts in the state vary districts show a low proportion of land used for
within a small range starting from 0.42 and hence horticulture. As mentioned, horticulture trees
add-up to a relatively high VI of the state as a whole. provide alternative income sources to agriculture,
and once established, are far less sensitive to
Similar is the case of Chhattisgarh with 18 districts and the impacts of climate risks, particularly rainfall
VIs of these districts falling within a small range: 0.58 variability and droughts. The lack of horticulture,
(in Raigarh)- 0.44 (in Bijapur). Gujarat is an interesting as a biophysical characteristic, makes these
case, where no district is found in Quartile I. But more districts more vulnerable to climate risks.

35
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

•• Lack of forest area per 100 rural population is is one of the major reasons behind the lack of
found to be a major driver in 99 districts in this adaptive capacity of the agricultural sector in
category. This means a lack of alternative income South-Asian countries (Aryal et al., 2020 ).
opportunities from the forest in these areas •• The prevalence of small and marginal landholders
leading to a lack of adaptive capacity in the case is also a major driver of vulnerability in 79
of climate hazards, especially those affecting districts of this Quartile (Figure 15). Marginal
income generation. and smallholder farmers experience immediate
•• The coverage of central crop insurance schemes hardships in case of climatic hazards. They are
are found to be low or absent in 80 districts. unable to make adequate decisions about when
Literature also suggests that a lack of insurance to sow, what to grow, and how-to and lack of
inputs along with low adaptive capacity.
Table 7: Number of districts in each state in Quartile I (top 25% vulnerable districts in India), Quartile II (upper-middle 25%
vulnerable districts in India), Quartile III (lower middle 25% vulnerable districts in India), and Quartile IV (bottom 25% vulnerable
districts in India); (% in parenthesis)

Number of Number of Number of Number of districts

Number of districts
States districts in districts in districts in
in Quartile II in Quartile IV
the state* Quartile I Quartile III
Andhra Pradesh 13 3 (23.08%) 6 (46.15%) 3 (23.08) 1 (7.69%)
Arunachal Pradesh 14 0 (0.00%) 2 (14.29%) 5 (35.71%) 7 (50.00%)
Assam 27 25 (92.59) 0 (0.00%) 1 (3.70%) 1 (3.70%)
Bihar 38 31 (81.58%) 7 (18.42%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
Chhattisgarh 18 0 (0.00%) 3 (16.67%) 6 (33.33%) 9 (50.00%)
Goa 2 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (50.00%) 1 (50.00%)
Gujarat 23 0 (0.00%) 12 (52.17%) 9 (39.13%) 2 (8.70%)
Haryana 21 1 (4.76%) 1 (4.76%) 6 (28.57%) 13 (61.90%)
Himachal Pradesh 12 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 12 (100.00%)
Erstwhile Jammu and
22 8 (36.36%) 6 (27.27%) 3 (13.64%) 5 (22.73%)
Kashmir
Jharkhand 24 15 (62.50%) 8 (33.33%) 1 (4.17%) 0 (0.00%)
Karnataka 30 1 (3.33%) 13 (43.33%) 9 (30.00%) 7 (23.33%)
Kerala 14 0 (0.00%) 5 (35.71%) 8 (57.14%) 1 (7.14%)
Madhya Pradesh 50 15 (30.00%) 11 (22.00%) 8 (16.00%) 16 (32.00%)
Maharashtra 35 6 (17.14%) 13 (37.14%) 10 (28.57%) 6 (17.14%)
Manipur 9 3 (33.33%) 5 (55.56%) 1 (11.11%) 0 (0.00%)
Meghalaya 7 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 3 (42.86%) 4 (57.14%)
Mizoram 8 1 (12.50%) 0 (0.00%) 3 (37.50%) 4 (50.00%)
Nagaland 11 0 (0.00%) 2 (18.18) 2 (18.18%) 7 (63.64%)
Orissa 30 10 (33.33%) 9 (30.00%) 8 (26.67%) 3 (10.00%)
Punjab 20 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 7 (35.00%) 13 (65.00%)
Rajasthan 33 0 (0.00%) 5 (15.15%) 17 (51.52%) 11 (33.33%)
Sikkim 4 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%)
Tamil Nadu 32 5 (15.63%) 6 (18.75%) 11 (34.38%) 10 (31.25%)
Telangana 9 2 (22.22%) 1 (11.11%) 3 (33.33%) 3 (33.33%)
Tripura 4 0 (0.00%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%) 1 (25.00%)
Uttar Pradesh 70 17 (24.29%) 31 (44.29%) 16 (22.86%) 6 (8.57%)
Uttarakhand 13 0 (0.00%) 1 (7.69%) 4 (30.77%) 8 (61.54%)
West Bengal 19 10 (52.63%) 4 (21.05%) 4 (21.05%) 1 (5.26%)

*Recent district boundaries could not be considered in some cases given non-availability of data.

36
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

2.5.2. Major drivers in the districts in in 94 districts followed by a lack of coverage

Quartile II of central crop insurance schemes such as
Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) and
•• The lack of forest area per 100 of the rural
Revised Weather-based Crop Insurance Scheme
population is the major driver in 101 districts.
(RWBCIS)), in 68 districts.
•• A low proportion of net sown area under
The lack of a road network acts as a driver of
horticulture is another significant driver in 98
vulnerability in 61 districts of this Quartile (Figure 18).
districts followed by a high proportion of marginal
and small landholders in 66 districts (Figure 16). Since the major drivers of vulnerability are related
2.5.3. Major drivers of vulnerability in to the primary sector and mostly agriculture, the
Quartile III results of this report are compared with a recent
•• Percentage of net sown area under horticulture study carried out by the Central Research Institute for
is the leading driver in 91 districts followed by Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA, 2019) on the agricultural
a lack of coverage of central crop insurance vulnerability of Indian districts. This study is also
schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima based on the Risk Management and Assessment
Yojana (PMFBY) and Revised Weather-based Crop Framework proposed by the IPCC AR5, which is
Insurance Scheme (RWBCIS)), in 82 districts. similar to the present assessment. A total of 15
•• Lack of forest area per 100 of the rural population indicators were considered for the assessment of
also contributes significantly to the vulnerability agricultural vulnerability in the CRIDA Report. The
of 81 districts in this Quartile (Figure 17). present assessment shows that more than 60% of the
2.5.4. Major drivers of vulnerability in districts in Jharkhand fall in Quartile I (top 25% most
Quartile IV vulnerable districts in India), exhibiting a high level of
•• Unlike the other three Quartiles, there are vulnerability. Most of the districts in this state were
fewer drivers in Quartile IV: only 394 drivers of also identified by CRIDA to have a high agricultural
vulnerability out of which percentage of the net vulnerability. The assessment found more than 90% of
sown area under horticulture is the leading driver districts in Assam and 80% of districts in Bihar highly

Figure 14: Bar diagram representing major drivers of vulnerability (indicators with normalised value>0.85)
for all districts in India

37
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

vulnerable. In the CRIDA report a moderate number c. Prioritizing the districts for adaptation
of districts in both states is also found to exhibit interventions and formulating climate-resilient
a high agricultural vulnerability. Andhra Pradesh, policies and programs.
Maharashtra, and Orissa were found to have a large
proportion of vulnerable districts in both studies. d. Aiding to the State Action Plan on Climate Change
and its revision.
2.6. Use of district-level e. Prioritizing adaptation interventions and
vulnerability assessment investments, for the government of India, State
governments, NABARD, World Bank, etc.
The report is aimed at policymakers and decision-
makers as a first step to prioritise locations for f. Providing a basis to identify the entry-point
addressing climate risk at a holistic level within a of intervention for adaptation planning and
vulnerability-hazard-exposure framework. This would investment at the district-level through the
allow for better-suited climate adaptation actions by identification of priority sectors and major drivers
factoring in differentiating features of districts and of vulnerability.
assist in the following:
A more detailed discussion is provided in the
a. Providing baseline information for climate change final chapter of the report. Finally, a vulnerability
adaptation planning of India at the district level. assessment is inherently a data-intensive process.
Therefore, this assessment also plays a curial role
b. Measuring the comparable degrees of in the identification of data-gaps for district-level
vulnerability for all the districts in India and analysis.
identifying the most vulnerable districts.

Figure 15: Bar diagrams representing major drivers (indicators with normalised value>0.85) in the districts in Quartile I (Top 25%,
i.e., 153 most vulnerable districts)

38
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 16: Bar diagram representing major drivers (indicators with normalised value>0.85) in the districts in Quartile II (25%-50%,
i.e., 153 upper-middle vulnerable districts)

Figure 17: Bar diagram representing major drivers (indicators with normalised value>0.85) of vulnerability in Quartile III (50%-75%,
i.e., 153 lower-middle vulnerable districts)

Figure 18: Bar diagram representing major drivers (indicators with normalized value>0.85) of vulnerability in Quartile IV (bottom
25% i.e., 153 least vulnerable districts)

39
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

40
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Part III:
Vulnerability assessment
by the states & UTs

41
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Part III:
Vulnerability assessment by the states & UTs
Part III of the present report provides district-level each state. Normalised values (NV) of all indicators are
vulnerability assessment of individual states. A major calculated based on their actual values (AV) and the
objective of the current project was capacity building average of NVs are then taken as the VI. The ranking
of the state departments to carry out vulnerability of districts/blocks, a map based on categorisation of
assessments based on the common methodology. districts in terms of VIs and the drivers of vulnerability
Participants from various states and union territories are also presented. The categorisation is obtained by
(UTs) were trained in the common methodology dividing the range of VIs into 3 or 5 equal intervals
through several workshops and discussions. and identifying districts/blocks falling under each
Subsequently, they carried out district/block/-level category, unless mentioned otherwise.
integrated/sectoral vulnerability assessments of
their respective states. By engaging with the state For each state NVs of the indicators are used to
officials continuously, the project also helped create identify the drivers of vulnerability. Identification
a platform for interaction. of the drivers of vulnerability is another important
objective of the assessment. It gives a preliminary
For most states, they represent integrated vulnerability understanding of the entry-point for any adaptation
assessments based on socio-economic, biophysical, intervention. To find the major drivers of vulnerability
and infrastructure-related indicators. Some states of a district, a threshold value of NV=0.80 was set
in the IHR carried out a sectoral assessment for and the indicators, for which the NVs exceeded the
the agricultural sector, since they already carried threshold values for a particular district/block, are the
out an integrated assessment under the previous considered to be major driver of vulnerability for that
IHCAP project (IHCAP, 2019)2. In addition, two states district. The number of districts for which an indicator
(Meghalaya and West Bengal) carried out block-level is a driver is also reported. This method is followed
vulnerability assessments. Some of the UTs also unless mentioned otherwise.
carried out the assessment, including the smaller
ones, such as, Pondicherry. It is important to note Many states reported that data acquired for the
here that for smaller states and UTs, district-level assessment were not always uniform in terms of time
vulnerability assessments may not prove meaningful. period. For example, data for two major drivers, road
Such states and UTs could carry out block and village density and women’s participation in the workforce,
level vulnerability assessments in the future. The in case of most of the states, had been taken from the
exact nature of assessments carried out by the states/ 2011 Census. So, if the assessment is carried out with
UTs are mentioned in the respective sections.3 recent data, the present status of the districts may
vary. However, vulnerability assessment is a dynamic
The methodological framework used by the states is process, and the VIs are likely to change over the time
based on the IPCC-AR5 (IPCC, 2014) risk management with change in the indicator values. Also, in many
and assessment framework that has been discussed cases, the most recent district boundaries couldn’t be
in the introduction of the report. Apart from a set considered due to non-availably of data.
of common indicators, the states included few
additional indicators for the assessment as they felt Inspite of few challenges, this effort is first of its
appropriate given the characteristics of the states. kind where all the states in India have come up with
The set of indicators used by each of the states and their vulnerability assessment based on a common
their relationship with vulnerability are mentioned for framework.

2 There may be some deviations in terms of results in the earlier IHR-based report (IHCAP, 2019) and in the current analysis. In the present study certain
indicators, such as slope and population density, were omitted to make it more appropriate for an all-India analysis. Also, it assigned equal weights to
indicators in many cases as opposed to unequal weights used in the previous study. Since a vulnerability assessment is a dynamic concept, the index
values derived are likely to change as the indicators, objective and time period of study, and weights change.

3. For Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal district level vulnerability assessment is carried out by the project
team at IIT Mandi, IIT Guwahati and IISc, Bengaluru.

42
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.1. Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh is located in the south-eastern part of VIs in various districts in Andhra Pradesh were found
of India at 12°41’ and 19.07°N latitude and 77° and to lie in a very small range: 0.59 (in Chittoor) - 0.47 (in
84°40’E longitude. Currently, Andhra Pradesh State Y.S.R. Kadapa). The range of VI values (i.e., 0.47 – 0.59)
has 13 districts. Although the state is primarily was then divided into three equal intervals to identify
agricultural, there is also some mining activity and a districts with a relatively high (~0.55-0.59), moderate
significant amount of industry. (~0.51- 0.55), and relatively low vulnerability (~0.47
-0.51). However, given minor differences between
In the state, summers are extraordinarily hot and VIs of any two districts, this exercise might not prove
humid, with maximum daily temperatures exceeding significantly meaningful for Andhra Pradesh as a
35°C and even surpassing 40°C in the central portion. whole. Districts such as Chittoor, Krishna, Sri Potti
Winters are somewhat cooler, with maximum Sriramulu Nellore (Nellore), Prakasam, Srikakulam and
temperatures between 30°-35°C in all but the north- Anantapur fall under the first, Visakhapatnam, West
eastern areas. Winter lows go below 15°C only in Godavari and Kurnool under the second, and Guntur,
the extreme north-east. The annual precipitation, East Godavari, Vizianagaram, and Y.S.R. (Kadapa)
which derives largely from the south-west monsoon under the third category. Figure 20 represents the
rains, generally decreases toward the south-western category-wise vulnerability map for Andhra Pradesh.
plateau area. Coastal areas receive about 1,000 to
1,200 mm of rainfall per year, while the western most The major drivers of vulnerability were found to be
part of the plateau may receive only half that much. the large proportion of marginal and small farmers in
the agricultural sector and the lack of forest area per
The present vulnerability assessment of the state has 1000 population (in 7 districts), followed by a lack of
been based on 12 indicators. The list of indicators, implementation of centrally funded crop insurance
their dimensions, relevant sectors and functional policies (in 6 districts), low road density (in 5 districts)
relationships with vulnerability is presented in Table and a lack of health infrastructure (in 4 districts).
8. Equal weights are assigned to each indicator to Figure 21 represents the drivers of vulnerability
calculate the VIs. VIs and the corresponding rank of applicable for the state.
each district are represented in Figure 19. The values

Table 8: List of indicators used for the assessment of district-level vulnerability assessment for Andhra Pradesh

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with vulnerability
Percentage of marginal and small operational holders Sensitivity Positive

Forest area (in ha) per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage area covered under centrally funded crop insurance schemes Adaptive Capacity Negative

Proportion of rainfed agriculture Sensitivity Positive

Variability in food grain crop yield (ton/ha) for the past 10 years Sensitivity Positive

Women’s participation in the workforce Adaptive Capacity Negative

Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative

Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage households with access to electricity Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage households with improved drinking water source Adaptive Capacity Negative

Health infrastructure per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative

Infant mortality rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive

43
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

.
VizianagaramSrikakulam

Visakhapatnam

East Godavari
West Godavari
Krishna
Guntur

Kurnool Prakasam

Anantapur
Y.S.R. (Kadapa)Nellore

Chittoor

Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.550-0.592)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.509-0.549)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.468-0.508)

100 50 0 100 Kilometers

Figure 19: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Figure 20: Categories of vulnerability of the districts in
Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh

Figure 21: Drivers of vulnerability in the districts of Andhra Pradesh (the length of the bars representing
the number of districts with the corresponding indicator as a driver of vulnerability)

Agricultural Field works Kanchipura, Tamil Nadu

44
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.2. Arunachal Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh, with a geographical area of on agricultural vulnerability at district level.
83,743 km2, is the largest state in North-East India. Indicators selected for the assessment along with
It is situated in the Indian Eastern Himalayan their dimensions and functional relationships with
Region between latitudes 26° 30’N and 29° 30’N vulnerability are presented in Table 9. Equal weights
and longitudes 91° 30’E and 97° 30’E. It has varying were assigned to all indicators for the assessment.
elevations ranging from 50 m in the foothills to areas The values of the District Level VIs for the agricultural
gradually ascending to 7000 m and above. At present, sector in the state lie between 0.74 (in Kurung
the state has 25 districts. However, the present Kumey) and 0.41 (in Lohit). This, again, shows that
vulnerability assessment was carried out based on 16 the range of values of the VIs is small and the values
districts given the previous district boundaries. This for different districts are close to each other. Here,
had to be done, since most of the new districts have too, the agricultural sector of most of the districts
only been recently bifurcated from the old ones and is vulnerable. Figure 22 represents the agricultural
the data for newly constructed districts are not always VIs calculated for the districts. Further, districts have
available. been categorised into relatively highly (~0.63-0.74),
The average temperature in Arunachal Pradesh moderately (~0.53-0.62) and relatively low (~0.41-
ranges from15° to 21oC in winter, while the monsoon 0.52) vulnerability. Seven districts, Kurung Kumey,
temperature ranges from 20° to 30oC. The rainfall Upper Subansiri, Anjaw, Tirap, Dibang Valley, West
there is among the heaviest in the country, with Siang and West Kameng fall under the first category.
more than 3500 mm in a year. Nevertheless, the Figure 23 represents the categories of agriculturally
state is characterised by persistent water scarcity and vulnerability of the districts.
periodic exposure to severe landslides, flash floods Figure 24 represents the drivers of vulnerability.
and droughts along with poverty and a non-diversified Major drivers contributing to agriculture vulnerability
pattern of livelihood, making it highly vulnerable to across districts are less number of Natural Resource
climate change. Management (NRM)-based projects under MGNREGA
The economy is largely agrarian, based on terrace- per 1000 ha, leading to a lack of alternative livelihood:
farming and a few pockets of shifting cultivation. low road density and the lack of fair price shops, lack
Agriculture and animal husbandry are the two of availability of water (both in terms of ground water
predominant occupations of the rural communities. and water bodies as a whole) among other. Low road
Since agriculture is the main source of livelihood density has caused poor access to markets for the
in the state, the assessment focused particularly purchase and sale of agricultural products.
Table 9: List of indicators used for the assessment of agricultural vulnerability of Arunachal Pradesh

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with vulnerability
Proportion of net area irrigated to net sown area Adaptive Capacity Negative
Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive
Lack of water availability Sensitivity Positive
Drainage density Sensitivity Positive
Percentage of landless, marginal, and small farmers Sensitivity Positive
Percentage of water bodies Adaptive Capacity Negative
Groundwater availability Adaptive Capacity Negative
Crop diversity Adaptive Capacity Negative
Share of value of output of horticulture (only perennial) to the
Adaptive Capacity Negative
value of agricultural output
Total number of livestock per 1000 rural households Adaptive Capacity Negative
Fair price shops per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative
Diversity index of the main source of income for rural households Adaptive Capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
Number of NRM Works per 1000 ha (MGNREGA) Adaptive Capacity Negative

45
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Upper Siang
Dibang Valley
.
West Siang
Lower Dibang Valley
Upper Subansiri
Kurung Kumey East Siang Anjaw
Lohit
Lower Subansiri
Tawang
West Kameng Changlang
East KamengPapum Pare
Tirap
Longding

Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulerable (0.631-0.741)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.521-0.630)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.411-0.520)
80 40 0 80 Kilometers

Figure 22: Agricultural vulnerability indices (VIs) of the Figure 23: Map showing the categories of agricultural
districts of Arunachal Pradesh vulnerability of the districts in Arunachal Pradesh

Figure 24: Major drivers of agricultural vulnerability in Arunachal Pradesh (the length of the bars
representing the number of districts with the corresponding indicator as a driver of vulnerability)

Fishing, Manipur
46
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.3. Assam
Assam, the second largest state in Northeastern India, based on the VIs calculated, is given in Figure 25. The
is situated south of the Eastern Himalayas along the highest value of VI was noted for Dhubri district (0.75)
Brahmaputra and Barak river valleys. The state has a and the lowest for Kamrup Metropolitan (0.42). The
geographical area of 78,438 km2 between 24°07′ N to range of VIs was divided into three equal intervals
28°00′ N latitude and 89°42′ E to 96°02′ E longitude. to form categories: relatively highly vulnerable
More than 80% of its population thrives on agriculture (~0.64 – 0.75), moderately vulnerable (0.53 – 0.64),
and allied activities. The total land under cultivation and relatively low vulnerable (~0.42-0.53). Chirang,
was 2.83 million ha in 2014-2015, which is almost Tinkhukia, Morigaon, Hailakandi, Goalpara, Golaghat,
36% of the total land area of the state. Kokrajhar, Karimganj, Darang, and Dhubri fall under
the first category. The map in Figure 26 represents the
The climate of Assam is sub-tropical, with warm,
categories of vulnerability.
humid summers and cool, dry winters. Because of its
unique geographical location and varied physiography, Major drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure
it has an array of climatic conditions. In the plains, 27. Out of the 15 indicators 5 were found to be
the maximum temperature does not go beyond 32° the main drivers of vulnerability in the state: a lack
C, while winters may have a minimum temperature of availability of centrally funded crop insurance
of about 8°C. The state is situated in the high rainfall schemes, a high prevalence of rainfed agriculture,
zone and has an annual average rainfall of 2297.4 limited forest area per hundred rural population, a
mm. While Assam is prone to floods; at times there lack of women’s participation in the workforce, and
are also drought-like situations with minimal rainfall. low road density. Of the 5 selected drivers, road
In 2016 it had received 2042.20 mm rainfall against density and forest area per 100 rural population has
a normal rainfall of 2295.80 mm - a departure of 7%. greater NVs than the threshold in 25 of the 27 districts.
Further, a high proportion of rain-fed agriculture was
The present report gives a district-level vulnerability
observed to be accountable for the vulnerability of
profile of the state based on indicators mentioned in
12 districts. The lack of area covered under centrally
Table 10 (along with their dimensions and functional
funded crop insurance schemes and lack of women’s
relationships with vulnerability). Equal weights were
participation in the workforce were found to be
assigned to all indicators. Ranking of the districts,
drivers contributing to vulnerability in 8 districts.
Table 10: List of indicators used for the vulnerability assessment for Assam

Adaptive Capacity Functional relationship

Indicators
/ Sensitivity with vulnerability
Percentage of households having monthly income of highest earning
Sensitivity Positive
household member less than Rs. 5,000 in rural area (Rural Poverty)
Livestock to human ratio Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of marginal and small operational holders Sensitivity Positive
Percentage of area covered under centrally funded crop insurance Adaptive Capacity Negative
Proportion of rainfed agriculture Sensitivity Positive
Forest area per 100 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Women’s participation in workforce Adaptive Capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive
Percentage of households with electricity Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of households with improved drinking water source Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of households with improved sanitation facility Adaptive Capacity Negative
Female literacy rate Adaptive Capacity Negative
Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive

47
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework in India Using a Common Framework

Lack of forest area per 100 rural population was also agriculturally dominant state, 36% of its geographical
found to be a major driver of vulnerability despite area is used by agriculture and allied sectors. Another
the fact that the state has a forest cover of 42%. driver is the proportion of rain-fed agriculture, for
The probable reason behind this is a combination of which data were taken for the period 2015-2016. The
factors; first, the rural population density. According to vulnerability due to this factor may change if recent
the 2011 Census, 85.91% of the population of Assam data are taken into consideration, as the irrigation
is rural. Then, the district-wise uneven distribution system in the state has been improved and is being
of forest area makes for a very small ratio of forest made more accessible to farmers through subsidised
cover per 100 rural population. Third, since it is an water pumps under different schemes.

Figure 25: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts of Assam

Dhemaji Tinsukia
.
Dibrugarh
Lakhimpur
Sivasagar
Sonitpur Jorhat
Udalguri
Kokrajhar Chirang Baksa
Darrang Nagaon Golaghat
BongaigaonBarpetaNalbari Morigaon
Dhubri Karbi Anglong
Goalpara Kamrup Metropolitan
Kamrup
Karbi Anglong

Dima Hasao

Cachar
Vulnerability Index
Karimganj Relatively High Vulnerable (0.640-0.748)
Hailakandi
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.532-0.639)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.425-0.531)

60 30 0 60 Kilometers

Figure 26: Map of districts with vulnerability categories in Assam

48
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 27: Drivers of vulnerability in districts of Assam (the length of the bars representing the number of districts with the
corresponding indicator as a driver of vulnerability)

3.4. Bihar
Bihar is situated between 24°16’ N to 27°45’ N latitude (~0.36 – 0.48). Other than Kishanganj, Katihar, Purnia,
and 83°16’ E to 88°30’ E longitude. The state has a Sitamarahi, Purba-Champaran, Darbhanga, and Araria
total geographical area of 94,163 km2. According to are the districts falling under the first category. They
data over 2016, agriculture accounts for 23%, industry are all situated in North Bihar.
17%, and services 60% of the state’s economy. There
are 38 districts in Bihar that have been considered for Poor health infrastructure was found to be the key
this assessment. driver in 36 districts, followed by a high percentage
of marginal and small operational holders in 24
The indicators used in the present integrated, district- districts. The lack of implementation of MGNREGA,
level vulnerability assessment are listed in Table 11 along causing a lack of alternative livelihood opportunities,
with their functional relationships with vulnerability. appeared as a key driver in 14 districts, followed by a
Equal weights were assigned to all indicators. The VIs of lack of women’s participation in the workforce in 11
the districts were found to be in the range from 0.73 (in districts. This would mean that improvement in the
Kishanganj) to 0.36 (in Rohtas). The VIs of the districts health infrastructure and implementation of schemes
and their corresponding rankings are presented in like MGNREGA will reduce vulnerability in the state.
Figure 28. and the map in Figure 29. By dividing the Also, an increase in women’s participation in the
range of VIs into equal intervals, three categories workforce will enhance the per capita income, which
were obtained: relatively highly vulnerable districts will further improve the adaptive capacity of people
(~0.61-0.74), moderately vulnerable districts (~0.48- there. Figure 30 shows the key drivers of vulnerability
0.61), and districts with relatively low vulnerability in the districts of Bihar.

49
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 11: List of indicators used for the assessment of district-level vulnerability for Bihar

Indicators Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Percentage of marginal and small operational holders Sensitivity Positive
Proportion of rain-fed agriculture Sensitivity Positive
Women’s participation in the workforce Adaptive Capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
Health infrastructure per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive
Percentage of households with improved drinking water source Adaptive Capacity Negative
Female literacy rate Adaptive Capacity Negative
Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive

Figure 28: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Bihar

Pashchim Champaran .
Purba ChamparanSitamarhi
Gopalganj Sheohar Madhubani
Supaul Kishanganj
Siwan Muzaffarpur Darbhanga Araria

Saran Madhepura
Purnia
VaishaliSamastipur Saharsa

Buxar Bhojpur Patna BegusaraiKhagaria Katihar

Bhagalpur
Arwal NalandaSheikhpura Munger
Jehanabad Lakhisarai
Kaimur Rohtas
Aurangabad Nawada Jamui Banka
Gaya

Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.612-0.735)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.490-0.611)
60 30 0 60 Kilometers Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.367-0.489)

Figure 29: Map showing the categories of vulnerability of the districts in Bihar

50
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 30: Key drivers of vulnerability in Bihar (the length of the bars representing the number of districts with the corresponding
indicator as a driver of vulnerability)

3.5. Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh is located between the latitude of 21°15’ agriculture and allied activities (including crop
0’’ N and 81°36’0’’ E longitude. Currently, there are 28 cultivation, horticulture, livestock, and fisheries),
districts in Chhattisgarh. The newly formed district of forests, water resources, socio-economic (rural)
Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi was not considered for this development, transport, energy, industries and
assessment on account of data limitations. mining, and health.
The climate of Chhattisgarh is tropical. Summers Twenty-six indicators representing the above sectors
(April to June) are generally hot and humid with were initially selected, but this had some limitations.
temperatures varying between 30°C and 47°C. The biggest challenge for quantifying the indicators
Winters are pleasant with low temperatures and less selected was the availability of data for all 27 districts.
humidity and temperatures between 5°C and 25°C. While the state has added new districts over the years,
Extremes have been observed with scales falling to several reports and statistical publications still contain
less than 0°C and running higher than 49°C. The state data for only 16 or 18 districts. Post quantification of
receives an average annual rainfall of about 1,250 the indicators, a correlation matrix was constructed
mm of which 90% is received during the southwest and indicators with moderate to high correlation (>
monsoon season (June to September). 0.5) were excluded from the assessment. From this
correlation analysis, the actual district-level integrated
The State Action Plan on Climate Change of the vulnerability assessment of the state was based on
state has identified agriculture, forestry, mining, a set of 12 common indicators, listed in Table 12.
and energy as the most vulnerable sectors For a Their dimensions and relationships with vulnerability
holistic representation of the biophysical and socio- are also presented. Equal weights were assigned to
economic systems of the state, the following sectors calculate VIs4.
were considered for the vulnerability assessment:

4 Prior to normalisation, outliers among the data needed to be identified and considered, because these would influence the overall Vulnerability Index
value. Using the Interquartile Rule, outliers were identified and excluded from the normalisation process. For each indicator, Quartile 1 (Q1), Quartile
2 (Median: Q2), Quartile 3 (Q3) and the Inter-Quartile Range (IQR) were calculated. Any value less than Q1-1.5*IQR or more than Q3+1.5*IQR is an
outlier according to the basic statistical principle of outlier detection.

51
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

The VIs for the districts of Chhattisgarh ranges from (OAE, Estt. micro, small, and medium), percentage of
0.35 in Kanker district to 0.76 in Mahasamund. The rural households below the poverty line, dependency
assessment of integrated vulnerability shows that 3 ratio, number of approved minor forest produce
districts -Mahasamund, Baloda Bazar, and Mungeli- (MFP) Microenterprises, number of functional health
were ranked as relatively very highly vulnerable. This care facilities, and the degree of forest dependence
was based on five categories ranging from relatively by rural tribal communities.
very high (0.68 -0.76), to high (0.60 – 0.68), moderate
(0.51-0.60), relatively low (0.43 – 0.51), and relatively It is to be mentioned that the data acquired for
very low vulnerability (0.35 – 0.43). Kanker and the assessment was not uniform in terms of time
Sukma were ranked as districts with a relatively low (applicable for all assessments presented in the
vulnerability. District-level VIs and related maps are report). Data for 4 major drivers, percentage of BPL
presented in Figure 31 -Figure 32. households (adjusted for inequalities), dependency
ratio, number of functional health care facilities per
Drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure 33. 6 10,000 population, and forest dependence of rural
out of the 12 indicators were found to be the main tribal communities were taken from the 2011 Census.
drivers of vulnerability: the number of establishments
Table 12: List of indicators used for the assessment of district-level vulnerability for Chhattisgarh

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Crop, livestock, and fish yield variability Sensitivity Positive
Percentage net area cultivated under horticulture Adaptive Capacity Negative
Available water resources under fish culture Adaptive Capacity Negative
Forest dependence of rural tribal communities Sensitivity Positive
Number of approved Minor Forest Produce micro-enterprises Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of rural households below the poverty line Sensitivity Positive
Dependency ratio Sensitivity Positive
Access to an alternate employment source (MGNREGS) Adaptive Capacity Negative
Number of establishments (OAE, Estt., Micro, small and Medium) Adaptive Capacity Negative
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive
Number of functional health care facilities per 10,000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Households with any usual member covered by a health scheme or
Adaptive Capacity Negative
health insurance

Figure 31: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Chhattisgarh

52
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Koriya Surajpur
Balrampur
.
Surguja
Jashpur
Korba
Bilaspur
Mungeli
Kabeerdham Raigarh
Janjgir-Champa
Bemetara
Baloda Bazar

Durg Raipur Mahasamund

Rajnandgaon

Balod
Dhamtari
Gariaband
Uttar Bastar Kanker

Kondagaon
Narayanpur

Bastar
Bijapur Dantewada

Vulnerability Index
Relatively Very High Vulnerable (0.68-0.76)
Sukma Relatively High Vulnerable (0.60-0.68)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.51-0.60)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.43-0.51)
Relatively Very Low Vulnerable (0.35-0.43)
60 30 0 60 Kilometers

Figure 32: Map showing the categories of vulnerability of the districts in Chhattisgarh

Figure 33: Drivers of vulnerability in districts of Chhattisgarh (the length of the bars representing the number of districts
with the corresponding indicator as a driver of vulnerability)

53
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.6. Gujarat
Gujarat is the western most state of India, with a the assessment, only Dahod district falls under the
geographical area of 196,030 km2 and an estimated first category, 10 districts under the next, while the
population of 6.38 crores, as of May 2020. Gujarat remaining 11 have a relatively low vulnerability. The
has the longest coastline of 1,663 km in the country. VI of Dahod is quite high (0.70) compared to the next
It is divided into 33 districts, however, the current vulnerable district, The Dangs (0.59). District-level VIs
assessment considered 23 districts, based on previous and related maps are presented in Figure 34 - Figure
district boundaries. 35.
The state falls in the subtropical climate zone and has With the given set of indicators, this assessment
a sub-humid climate in southern Gujarat (South of goes with the ground scenario, except that a few
River Narmada), moderately humid climate in central vulnerable districts, for instance Kachchh, obtained a
Gujarat (between Narmada and Sabarmati rivers), lower VIs in contrast with a general understanding of
humid and sultry climate in the coastal region (south the districts. The district has a high rural-urban ratio,
facing coastal region of Saurashtra), dry climate in and most of its population has a critical dependence
regions of central Gujarat (north of Ahmedabad and on natural resources for their livelihood. It also has a
part of central Saurashtra) and arid and semi-arid lower per capita income compared to other districts
climate in north Gujarat and Kachchh. There are 8 and few infrastructure facilities. Its long coastline
agro-climatic zones based on soil characteristics, makes it even more vulnerable. These factors are
rainfall, and temperature. The summer temperature making Kachchh sensitive to vulnerability and indicate
varies between 25°C and 45°C, while the winter its low adaptive capacity.
temperature ranges between 15°C and 35°C. The
normal monsoon season runs from June to Sept, with This example brings out that choosing the right
a normal annual rainfall of 852 mm. But there is a indicators for a vulnerability assessment is very
wide annual variation: from 300 mm in the Western important, although it may be constrained by data
half of Kachchh to 2,100 mm in the Southern part of limitations. If indicators like coastal length, overall
Valsad and the Dangs District. per capita income, household tap water connection,
school-dropout rates, groundwater availability and
The 15 indicators used in this district-level integrated quality, and percentage of the population dependent
vulnerability assessment are listed in Table 13. A on natural resources for livelihood were all considered,
correlation analysis had been carried out on an the nature of vulnerability of the districts would
initially chosen to set of indicators and those with change.
high correlation with one or more other indicators
are omitted from the analysis. All indicators were The major drivers of vulnerability are provided in
assigned equal weights. It may be noted that this is Figure 36 (Gujarat used NV=0.85 as the threshold
not an exhaustive list of indicators to be used for a value). They include a low percentage of forest
vulnerability assessment for the state. Such a list area, low road density, high proportion of small and
can be improved and made in line with the state’s marginal operational holders, low livestock- human
priorities after thorough discussion with functional ratio, rural poverty, a low number of women in
and administrative heads of state departments the workforce, and a low female literacy rate. 16
and academia working in this field as well as other districts (like Ahmedabad, Anand, Sabarkantha, and
important stakeholders. Surendranagar) have a relatively limited forest area as
their key driver. Because of it, the adaptive capacity
The VI range was observed to be 0.70 – 0.43, which and earning capacity of tribal and forest-dependent
is relatively narrow. Dahod had the highest relative households is low. One may note that the lack of
vulnerability and Junagadh the lowest. The range of VIs forest cover in many parts of the state is a biophysical
was divided into three categories: highly vulnerable feature that is difficult to be altered. Road density is
(0.61- 0.70) and moderately vulnerable (0.52-0.60), also found to be low in 9 districts (lowest in Kheda,
and low vulnerability (0.43 – 0.51). According to Dang, and Kachchh).

54
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 13: List of indicators used for the assessment of district level vulnerability for Gujarat

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Rural poverty (Percentage of households with a monthly income of
Sensitivity Positive
highest earning member less than Rs. 5,000, in rural area)
Livestock to human ratio Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of marginal and small operational holders Sensitivity Positive
Proportion of rain-fed agriculture Sensitivity Positive
Percentage area under forest cover Adaptive Capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
Women’s’ participation in the workforce Adaptive Capacity Negative
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative
Health infrastructure per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive
Percentage of households with access to electricity Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of households with improved drinking water source Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of households with improved sanitation facility Adaptive Capacity Negative
Female literacy rate Adaptive Capacity Negative
Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive

Figure 34: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Gujarat

55
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Patan
Banas Kantha

Sabar Kantha
.
Kachchh Mahesana
Aravalli
Gandhinagar Mahisagar

Morbi Kheda
SurendranagarAhmadabad Dahod
Panch Mahals

Jamnagar Anand
Chhota Udaipur
Devbhumi Dwarka Vadodara
Rajkot Botad
Bharuch
Narmada
Porbandar Bhavnagar
Junagadh Amreli
Surat Tapi

Gir Somnath
Navsari The Dangs
Vulnerability Index
Newly constructed districts Valsad
Relatiively High Vulnerable (0.606-0.695)
Relatively Moderate Vulerable (0.517-0605)
50 25 0 50 Kilometers Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.427-0.516)

Figure 35: Map showing the categories of vulnerability of the districts in Gujarat

Figure 36: Drivers of vulnerability in districts of Gujarat (the length of the bars representing the number of districts with
the corresponding indicator as a driver of vulnerability)

56
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.7. Haryana
Haryana is situated in the northern part of India little variation is found in results obtained based on
between 27⁰ 37’ to 30⁰ 35’ N latitude and between PCA-determined weights and equal weights, hence
74⁰ 28’ and 77⁰ 36’ E longitude. It has 22 districts. the analysis was carried out based on equal weights
Agriculture and related industries are the backbone assigned to each indicator.
of the local economy. Haryana is also an industrial
state and has emerged as a base for the knowledge The vulnerability ranking of districts in Haryana
industry including IT and biotechnology. shows Mewat to be highly vulnerable with a VI value
of 0.57, followed by Gurugram (0.51) and Faridabad
The climate of Haryana is very hot in summer and cold (0.49). Fatehbad District is the least vulnerable (0.31),
in winters. Winter months have average temperatures followed by Hisar (0.35) and Kaithal (0.36). Further,
in the range of 3o C to 9o C, while the summer months districts were divided into three categories, highly
temperatures are in the range of 35o C to 48o C. About vulnerable (~0.48-0.57), moderately vulnerable
80% of the rainfall occurs in the monsoon season districts (~0.40 – 0.48), and districts with a relatively
during the months of July and September. Rainfall is low vulnerability (~0.31-0.40). Other than Sirsa, most
varied, with the Shivalik Hills as the wettest and the of the relatively high and moderately vulnerable
Aravalli Hills as the driest regions. districts in the state spread over the eastern part.
District-level VIs and related maps are presented in
The present district-level vulnerability assessment Figure 37 - Figure 38.
for Haryana was based on 16 indicators related
to biophysical, socio-economic, institutional, and Drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure 39. The
infrastructure-related indicators. major drivers identified are lack of forest area (in ha)
per 1000 rural population (in 20 districts), landless,
The list of indicators along with their functional marginal, and small farmers (16 districts), lack of crop
relationships with vulnerability is presented in Table insurance (10 districts), lack of implementation of
14. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was run MGNREGA (4 districts), and groundwater extraction
to calculate weights of the indicators. Since very (3 districts).
Table 14: List of indicators used for the assessment of district level vulnerability for Haryana

Adaptive Capacity Functional relationship

Indicators
/ Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Women’s participation in the workforce Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of households with electricity Adaptive Capacity Negative
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive
Marginal and small farmers (land < 5 acre) Sensitivity Positive
Yield Variability of food grain Sensitivity Positive
Average days of employment provided per household under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
Proportion of rainfed agriculture Sensitivity Positive
Forest area (in ha)/1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Per capita income Adaptive Capacity Negative
Livestock to human ratio Adaptive Capacity Negative
Number of functional health centers per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of villages connected with paved roads Adaptive Capacity Negative
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative
Proportion of area under crop insurance Adaptive Capacity Negative
Total groundwater extraction per 1000 ha Sensitivity Positive

57
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 37: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Haryana

Panchkula

Ambala
Yamunanagar
.
Kurukshetra

Kaithal
Karnal
Sirsa Fatehabad

Jind Panipat
Hisar
Sonipat Vulnerability Index
Rohtak Relatively High Vulnerable (0.481-0.566)
Bhiwani Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.397-0.480)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.312-0.396)
Jhajjar
Charkhi Dadri
GurugramFaridabad

MahendragarhRewari
Palwal
Mewat

50 25 0 50 Kilometers

Figure 38: Map showing the categories of vulnerability of the districts in Haryana

58
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 39: Drivers of vulnerability in districts of Haryana (the length of the bars representing the number of districts with the
corresponding indicator as a driver of vulnerability)

3.8. Himachal Pradesh

Located in North India, Himachal Pradesh is a socio-economic, institutional, and infrastructure
mountainous state and extends from the latitudes related aspects. The list of indicators along with their
30°22’40” North to 33°12’40” North and longitudes functional relationships with vulnerability is presented
75°45’ 55” East to 79°04’ 20” East. The entire state in Table 15. The present analysis was based on equal
has a hilly and rugged terrain, with the altitude weights assigned to each indicator.
ranging from 350 m to 7000 m above sea level. With
a geographical area of 55,673 kms2 and population of The highest VI was obtained for Sirmaur district
6.6 million, it accounts for 1.6 percent of the national (0.63) and the lowest for Kinnaur (0.40). It shows
geographical area and about 0.6 percent of India’s that most districts fall within a small range and are
population. almost equally vulnerable. All districts were divided
into three categories, relatively highly vulnerable
Historical, gridded data from the Indian Meteorological (0.63-0.40), relatively moderately vulnerable
Department on daily temperature (maximum and districts (0.48-0.56), and those with a relatively low
minimum) and rainfall from 1951-2013 for the state vulnerability (0.40-0.48). Sirmaur, Solan, Kangra,
show that its mean annual maximum temperature Bilaspur, Mandi, Kullu, and Chamba are the highly
is 25.9° C. (range 24.5°C to 27.1°C) and the average vulnerable districts. District-level VIs and related
annual rainfall is 1284.2 mm (range 704.7 - 2062.8 maps are presented in Figure 40-Figure 41. Drivers of
mm). vulnerability are represented in Figure 42. The lack of
health infrastructure (in 9 districts) and lack of crop
The present district-level vulnerability assessment insurance (8 districts) were found to be the major
was based on 13 indicators related to biophysical, drivers in this state.

59
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 15: List of indicators used for the assessment of district-level vulnerability for Himachal Pradesh

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Percentage of households having monthly income of highest earning Sensitivity Positive
member less than Rs. 5,000 in rural area

Livestock to human ratio Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage area covered under centrally funded crop insurance schemes Adaptive Capacity Negative

Proportion of rainfed agriculture Sensitivity Positive

Forest area per 100 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative

Women’s participation in the workforce Adaptive Capacity Negative

Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative

Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative

Health infrastructure per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative

Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive

Percentage of household with improved drinking water source Adaptive Capacity Negative

Female literacy rate Adaptive Capacity Negative

Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive

Figure 40: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Himachal Pradesh

60
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Chamba
.
Lahaul & Spiti

Kangra
Kullu

Hamirpur Mandi
Una Kinnaur

Bilaspur

Shimla
Solan

Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.558-0.635)
Sirmaur
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.480-0.557)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.403-0.479)
40 20 0 40 Kilometers

Figure 41: Map showing the categories of vulnerability of the districts in Himachal Pradesh

Figure 42: Drivers of vulnerability in districts of Himachal Pradesh (the length of the bars representing the number of
districts with the corresponding indicator as a driver of vulnerability)

61
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.9. Jammu & Kashmir

Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) has a geographical area of crops, plantation crops, and flowers. Approximately
42,241 km2. The Union Territory (UT) is situated in the 0.67 million ha (80% of total operational holding) of
Indian Eastern Himalayan Region between 73°55’E agricultural land is subject to one or other disaster
32°18’N and 76°41’E 34°52”N, with varying elevations: - including landslides, floods, and drought. This
from 247m in the foothills gradually ascending to applies to 11 districts. The fact that 0.397 million ha
above 5320 m. There are 20 districts with Doda as the of land belong to marginal farmers exacerbates the
largest and Ganderbal the smallest, respectively. vulnerability of agricultural systems in the state.
The average annual temperature in Jammu is 24.2oC, Since agriculture is the main source of livelihood in
while in Kashmir it is 13.5oC. The average rainfall the UT, this report presents a district-level agricultural
in the state is 1238 mm a year. According to the vulnerability assessment. Indicators selected for
Meteorological Department, the average temperature the assessment, along with their dimensions and
in J&K in the last 100 years has increased by 1.2oC. It functional relationships with vulnerability are
has even surpassed the average global temperature presented in Table 16. Equal weights were assigned
rise in the last 100 years of 0.8 to 0.9oC. The UT is to all indicators.
also witnessing sudden changes in precipitation and
snowfall pattern. Figure 43 presents the agricultural VIs calculated for
the districts. The values of VIs for the agricultural sector
The local economy is predominantly (about 70%) lie between 0.53 in Kulgam and 0.35 in Udhampur. It,
dependent on agriculture and allied activities like again, shows that the range of the values is small and
animal husbandry. According to the Agriculture are close to each other. It indicates that most districts
Census 2015-16, the total operational holding area are more or less equally vulnerable with respect to
in the whole area is 0.842 million ha. For marginal the agricultural sector. Districts were also categorised
farmers (landholding below 1 ha) that comes to into those with a relatively high (0.50 and above),
0.397 million ha, small farmers 0.221 million ha, moderate (~0.42-0.49) and relatively low (~0.35-0.41)
semi-medium farmers 0.154 million ha, medium vulnerability. Six districts, Bandipora, Ganderbal,
farmers 0.059 million ha, and large farmers 0.011 Anantnag, Shopian, Kulgam, and Reasi, falls under the
million ha. There are four agro-climatic zones in the first category; Srinagar, Kupwara, Budgam, Pulwama,
UT: subtropical, valley temperate, intermediate, and Poonch, Rajouri, Samba, Ramban, and Doda comes
cold-arid. They determine the cropping pattern and under the second; and Kathua, Udhampur, Jammu,
productivity. 60% of agricultural land is rainfed with Baramulla, and Kishtawar under the last category.
frequent moisture stress. The percentage of gross
irrigated area out of gross cropped area was 43.01% Figure 44 presents the categories of agricultural
in 2017-2018. J&K also cultivates various horticultural vulnerability of the districts.

Table 16: List of indicators used for the assessment of district-level agricultural vulnerability for Jammu and Kashmir

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Drainage density Adaptive Capacity Negative
Agricultural credit societies Sensitivity Positive
Yield variability of food grain Sensitivity Positive
Crop diversification Index Sensitivity Positive
Proportion of net irrigated area (of net sown area) Adaptive Capacity Negative
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative
Proportion of land holdings below 1 ha Sensitivity Positive
Fair price shops per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
Total number of livestock per 1000 rural households Adaptive Capacity Negative
Number of NRM works per 1000 ha (MGNREGA) Adaptive Capacity Negative

62
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Drivers of vulnerability are represented in Figure 45. agricultural credit societies, variability in food grains,
Drainage density is the major driver of agricultural crop diversification index, percentage net irrigated
vulnerability in the UT followed by the lack of area to sown area.

Figure 43: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts of Jammu and Kashmir with respect to agricultural vulnerability

Kupwara Bandipora

Ganderbal
.
Baramulla Srinagar

Budgam Pulwama

Anantnag
Poonch Shopain

Kulgam Kishtwar

Rajouri Ramban
Reasi
Doda

Jammu Udhampur

Vulnerability Index
Samba Kathua Relatively HighVulnerable (0.470-0.530)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.410-0.469)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.350-0.409)
30 15 0 30 Kilometers

Figure 44: Map of districts in Jammu and Kashmir with categories of agricultural vulnerability

63
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 45: Drivers of agricultural vulnerability at the district level of Jammu and Kashmir (the length of the bars
representing the number of districts with the corresponding indicator as a driver of vulnerability)

3.10. Jharkhand
Jharkhand, covering an area of 79,714 km2, was Currently, the state has 24 districts, and the
created in 2000 by bifurcating the hilly and plateau assessment is based on 10 indicators on those.
regions of Bihar. It is situated at the latitude of 23° The list of indicators along with their functional
21’ 0’’ N and longitude of 85° 19’ 48’’ E. Agricultural relationships with vulnerability is presented in Table
land with fallow and forest areas dominates the 17. Six indicators -livestock to human ratio, women’s
landscape. They occupy 49% and 30% of the total participation in the workforce, road density, IMR,
geographical area, respectively. The landholding size percentage of households with access to electricity,
is comparatively small due to the undulating terrain. and percentage of households using improved
Built-up areas (urban and rural) with industrial and sanitation facility- had been considered initially but
mining activities occupy 5% and wasteland and forest were dropped because of their high correlation with
scrub 9% and 5%, respectively, of the total area. other indicators. Equal weights were assigned to each
indicator to calculate the VIs.
Jharkhand has a tropical climate with an annual average
rainfall of about 900 mm. There are 3 well-defined District-level VIs and related maps are presented
seasons. The hot-weather season lasts from March in Figure 46 - Figure 47. The highest value of VI was
to mid-June. May, the hottest month, is characterised obtained for Sahebganj district (0.72) and the lowest
by daily high temperatures of around 37°C and low for Ranchi (0.36). The range of VIs was divided into
temperatures of 20-25°C. The cold-weather season, three equal intervals to construct the categories:
from November to February, is the most pleasant part districts with a relatively high (0.60-0.72), a relatively
of the year. The lowest temperature lies between-5°C moderate (0.48-0.60), and a relatively low vulnerability
and 0°C. The maximum rainfall takes place from July (0.36-0.48). It was found that 10 districts were falling
to September. It accounts for more than 90% of the under the first - Sahibganj, Pakur, Chatra, Garhwa,
total rainfall in the state. Palamu, Giridih, Hazaribag, Bokaro, Khunti, and Godda.

64
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Major drivers of vulnerability are presented in to have lack of forest cover as a driver in the state.
Figure 48. Four out of the 10 indicators, proportion However, it arises from the fact that some of the
of rain-fed agriculture, percentage of area covered districts have very high forest cover (such as Latehar,
under centrally funded crop insurance, forest area Pashchim Singbhum, etc.) as compared to others
per 100 rural population, and health infrastructure (such as Jamtara, Deoghar, etc.) indicating high scope
per 1000 population, were found as main drivers of of improvement in the later group.
vulnerability in the state. It might be counterintuitive

Table 17: Indicators used for district-level assessment for Jharkhand

Functional
Adaptive Capacity /
Indicators relationship with
Sensitivity
Vulnerability
Percentage of households having monthly income of highest earning Sensitivity Positive
household member less than Rs. 5,000 in rural area
Percentage of marginal and small operational holders Sensitivity Positive
Percentage area covered under centrally funded crop insurance schemes Adaptive Capacity Negative
Proportion of rain-fed agriculture Sensitivity Positive
Forest area per 100 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
Health infrastructure per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of household with improved drinking water source Adaptive Capacity Negative
Female literacy rate Adaptive Capacity Negative
Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive

Figure 46: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Jharkhand

65
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Sahibganj
.
Godda

Kodarma Pakur
Giridih Deoghar Dumka
Garhwa Palamu Chatra
Hazaribagh
Jamtara
Latehar Dhanbad
Ramgarh Bokaro
Lohardaga
Ranchi

Gumla
Khunti
Saraikela-kharsawan

Simdega Purbi Singhbhum

Pashchimi Singhbhum

Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.60-0.72)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.48-0.60)
70 35 0 70 Kilometers Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.36-0.48)

Figure 47: Map showing vulnerability categories of Jharkhand at district level

Figure 48: Drivers of vulnerability in Jharkhand (the length of the bars representing the number of districts with the
corresponding indicator as a driver of vulnerability)

66
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.11. Karnataka
Karnataka has an area of 191,791 km² and accounts A PCA was run to calculate weights but very little
for 5.83% of the total geographical area of India. The variation was found in the results based on PCA-
state is situated on the western edge of the Deccan determined weights of the indicators and on equal
Peninsular region. It is located between 11.5° and weights. So, the present analysis was based on the
18.5° N latitudes and 74° and 78.5° E longitudes and equal weights assigned to each indicator.
is divided into 30 districts. Karnataka comprises the
Deccan Plateau, the Western Ghats Mountain Range Chikballapur has the highest VI (0.728), which is much
and the Coastal Plains. According to land utilisation higher as compared to the second most vulnerable
statistics of 2017-2018, the net cropped area was district Kolar (0.68). Lowest vulnerability is found for
found to be 98.95 lakh ha, which is 51.94% of the the distinct Kodagu (0.492). Following categorisation
total area of the state was obtained: those that were relatively very high
vulnerable (~0.68 – 0.73), relatively high vulnerable
The climate is hot with an excessive rainfall during (~0.63 – 0.68), and relatively moderately vulnerable
the monsoon (June to September). Over a period of (~0.69 – 0.63), and districts with a relatively low
almost 35 years (1980-2013) the average rainfall was vulnerable (~0.54 – 0.59) and a relatively very low
calculated as 1191.6 mm. The winter season runs from vulnerable (~0.49- 0.54). Chikballapur, with its VI
mid-December to February (with 5.2 mm rainfall), the 0.728 is the only district in the first category, followed
summer season from March to May (125 mm), the by Kolar, Gadag, Bidar, Udupi and Dharwad falling in
South-West monsoon from June to September (869.3 the second category. However, However, given minor
mm,) and the North-East monsoon from October to differences between VIs of any two districts, this
mid-December (192.1 mm). exercise might not prove significantly meaningful for
Karnataka as a whole and it may be concluded that all
The present district-level vulnerability assessment districts are more or less equally vulnerable. District-
for Karnataka is based on 19 indicators related to level VIs and related maps are presented in Figure 49
biophysical, institutional infrastructure, health, - Figure 50.
socio-economic, and livelihood conditions. The list
of indicators along with their functional relationships Drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure 51.
with vulnerability is presented in Table 18. Three Road density and forest area (in ha) per 1000 rural
indicators, percentage of BPL households, water population were found to be important key drivers,
scarcity, and percentage of households using since they are repeated in all the 19 districts, followed
improved sanitation facility, were initially considered, by households with a Kisan credit card with a credit
but finally dropped from the analysis because of their limit of Rs.50,000 and above (14 districts), per capita
high correlation with other indicators. income (12 districts), percentage of area under
rainfed agriculture (11 districts).

Morni Hills Panchkula, Haryana

67
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 18: Indicators used for district-level assessment for Karnataka

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with Vulnerability

Per capita income Adaptive Capacity Negative

Livestock to human ratio per ha (sheep and goats) Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of marginal and small farmers (land <2.5 ha) Sensitivity Positive
Women’s participation in the workforce Adaptive Capacity Negative
Forest area (in ha) per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Value of output of total horticulture (only perennial)/ value of agricultural Adaptive Capacity Negative
output
Percentage area under rainfed agriculture (i.e. ratio total area – net sown Sensitivity Positive
area)
Yield variability of food grain Sensitivity Positive
Groundwater extraction Sensitivity Positive
Households having a Kisan credit card with credit limit of Rs.50,000 and Adaptive Capacity Negative
above
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative
Access to electricity Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of households with improved drinking water facility Adaptive Capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
Self Help Groups per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Health-sector related infrastructure Adaptive Capacity Negative
No of doctors, specialists, health assistants and health workers per 1000 Adaptive Capacity Negative
population
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive
Cases of vector-borne diseases per 1000 population (malaria, dengue) Sensitivity Positive

Figure 49: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Karnataka

68
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Bijapur
Gulbarga
Bidar

Yadgir
.
Bagalkot
Belgaum Raichur

Koppal
Dharwad Gadag
Bellary
Uttara KannadaHaveri

Davanagere
ChitradurgaTumkur
Shimoga

Udupi Chikmagalur Chikballapura

Tumkur
Bangalore Rural
Kolar
Hassan Bangalore
Dakshina Kannada
MandyaRamanagara
Kodagu
Mysore
Chamrajnagar

Vulnerability Index
Relatively Very High Vulnerable (0.681-0.728)
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.634-0.680)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.586-0.633)
75 37.5 0 75 Kilometers Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.539-0.585)
Relatively Very Low Vulnerable (0.492-0.538)

Figure 50: Map showing vulnerability categories for Karnataka at district level

Figure 51: Drivers of vulnerability in Karnataka (the length of the bars representing the number of districts with the
corresponding indicator as a driver of vulnerability)

69
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.12. Kerala
Kerala is located between 80o 17’ 30’’ N and 12° proportion of income derived from natural resources,
47’40’’ N latitudes and 74° 27 ‘47” E and 77° 37’12” were initially considered, but finally dropped from
E longitudes. It lies between the Arabian Sea in the the analysis due to their high correlation with other
West and the Western Ghats (Sahyadris) in the East. indicators. Equal weights were assigned to each
It covers an area of 38,863 km2 with a population of indicator to calculate the VIs.
33,387,677 and has 14 districts.
The highest value of vulnerability was obtained for
The climate of Kerala is equable and varies little Malappuram District (0.701) and the lowest for
from season to season. Throughout the year, daily Ernakulam (0.488). The range of VIs was then divided
temperatures range from about 20oC up to around into three categories: relatively high (~0.63-0.70),
30oC. The state is directly exposed to the southwest relatively moderate (~0.56-0.63), and relatively low
monsoon, which prevails from July through vulnerability (~0.49-0.56). Two districts fall under
September, but it also receives rain from the reverse the first category (Malappuram and Kollam), and 4
(northeast) monsoon, which blows in October and under the second; 8 districts are in the third category.
November. Statewide precipitation averages about Mostly, the high and moderately vulnerable districts
3,000 mm annually, with some slopes receiving more are located in the southern or northern part of the
than 5,000 mm. The state was hit by Cyclone Ockhi in state. District-level VIs and the related maps are
2017 and by severe floods resulting from unusually presented in Figure 52 - Figure 53
heavy rains in 2018 and again in 2019.
Major drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure
The state has 14 districts, and the present vulnerability 54. Five indicators emerged as the main drivers of
assessment was conducted based on 18 indicators. vulnerability: lack of crop insurance, high rate of
The list of indicators along with their functional marginal landholdings, relatively low forest cover per
relationships with vulnerability is presented in Table 1000 population, lack of irrigation, lack of doctors per
19. Two indicators, livestock to human ratio and 1000 population.

Table 19: Indicators used for district-level vulnerability assessment for Kerala

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicator
Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Percentage of BPL households Sensitivity Positive
Percentage of marginal land- holdings Sensitivity Positive
Women’s participation in the work force Adaptive Capacity Negative
Proportion of income generated from tertiary sector Adaptive Capacity Negative
Forest area per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Proportion of value of horticulture to total value of agriculture Adaptive Capacity Negative
Proportion of net irrigated area Adaptive Capacity Negative
Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive
Groundwater availability Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of population in multi-hazard areas Sensitivity Positive
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative
Rural bank per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNERGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of area under crop insurance Adaptive Capacity Negative
Vector-borne diseases per 1000 population Sensitivity Positive
Waterborne diseases per 1000 Population Sensitivity Positive
Doctors per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive

70
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 52: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Kerala

.
Kasaragod

Kannur

Wayanad
Kozhikode

Malappuram

Palakkad

Thrissur

Ernakulam

Idukki
Kottayam

Vulnerability Index Alappuzha

Relatively High Vulnerable (0.630-0.701) Pathanamthitta
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.559-0.629)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.488-0.558) Kollam

Thiruvananthapuram

50 25 0 50 Kilometers

Figure 53: Map showing vulnerability categories of Kerala at district level

71
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 54: Drivers of vulnerability in Kerala (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the indicator
acts as a driver of vulnerability)

3.13. Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh is India’s second largest state, weights attached. A PCA was run to calculate weights
covering a total area of 3,08,252 km2 constituting and then the analysis was done.
9.38% of the total geographical area of the country.
The state is in Central India at the latitude of The highest value of vulnerability was obtained for
21.6°N-26.30°N and longitude of 74°9’E-82°48’E. Satna (0.692) and the lowest for Indore (0.421). The
range of the VIs was then divided into five categories,
The state has a sub-tropical climate. Like most of each of an equal interval: relatively very high (0.638-
North India it has a hot, dry summer (April to June) 0.692), relatively high (0.584-0.637), relatively
followed by monsoon rains (July to September), and a moderate (0.529-0.583), relatively low (0.475-0.528),
cool and relatively dry winter (November to January. and relatively very low vulnerability (0.421-0.474).
In summer, the temperature reaches over 45oC. The Most vulnerable districts are Satna, Rewa, Singrauli,
average rainfall is around 1160 mm and decreases Sidhi, Panna, Mandla, Sahdol, Katni and Damoh. They
from east to west. The south-eastern districts have are all located in the eastern part of the state that
the heaviest rainfall -some places receive as much evidently shows a high concentration of vulnerable
as 2,150 mm, while the western and north-western districts. District-level VIs and the related maps are
districts receive 1,000 mm or less. presented in Figure 55 - Figure 56.
The state has 52 districts, but the present district- Major drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure
level vulnerability assessment was conducted for 57. Six indicators emerged as the main drivers of
only 50 districts because of non-availability of data vulnerability: lack of area crop insurance, lack of forest
with respect to the 18 selected indicators related area per 1000 rural population, low road density, lack
to biophysical, socio-economic, and institution and of groundwater availability, a small number of doctors
infrastructure-related aspects. The list of indicators per 1000 population, and lack of horticulture.
along with their functional relationships with
vulnerability is presented in Table 20 along with the

72
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 20: Indicators used for district-level assessment for Madhya Pradesh

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship Weights

Indicators
Sensitivity / Exposure with Vulnerability (WI)

Percentage share of area under crop insurance (National

Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.06
Agricultural Insurance Scheme in 2015)
Percentage of agricultural labourers Sensitivity Positive 0.06
Forest area per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.07
Percentage BPL households Sensitivity Positive 0.06
Total length of roads per 100 km2 Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.06
Percentage of households availing banking services Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.05
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive 0.06
Cases of water-borne diseases (Diarrhoea / Dysentery) Sensitivity Positive 0.05
Cases of vector-borne diseases per 1000 population Sensitivity Positive 0.05
Groundwater availability Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.05
Average person days / household employed under
Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.06
MGNREGA
Total number of livestock per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.07
Yield variability of food grain Sensitivity Positive 0.03
Women’s’ workforce participation Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.06
Percentage of net irrigated area to net sown area Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.06
No of doctors per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.06
Percentage of marginal & small farmers Sensitivity Positive 0.05
Value of total horticulture output / value of total agriculture
Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.04
output

Jharkhand
73
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 55: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Madhya Pradesh

74
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

.
Morena Bhind
Gwalior
Sheopur Datia
Shivpuri
Tikamgarh
Chhatarpur Rewa
Neemuch GunaAshoknagar Satna
Panna
Mandsaur Sidhi Singrauli
Vidisha
Agar MalwaRajgarh Sagar Damoh
Katni
Ratlam
Ujjain Bhopal UmariaShahdol
Shajapur
Raisen Jabalpur Anuppur
Jhabua Sehore Narsimhapur Dindori
Indore Mandla
Dhar Dewas Hoshangabad
Alirajpur Harda Seoni
Chhindwara
Barwani Khargone Khandwa Betul Balaghat

Burhanpur
Vulnerability Index
Relatively Very High Vulnerable (0.638-0.692)
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.584-0.637)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.529-0.583)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.475-0.528)
100 50 0 100 Kilometers Relatively Very Low Vulnerable (0.421-0.474)

Figure 56: Map showing vulnerability Categories of Madhya Pradesh at district level

Figure 57: Drivers of Vulnerability (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the indicator
acts as a driver of vulnerability)

75
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.14. Maharashtra
Maharashtra is the third largest state in India by size The highest VI was found for Nandurbar District
and second largest by population. It is located in the (0.695) and the lowest for Gadchiroli (0.502). Figure
western and central part of India at the latitude of 58 gives the VI and corresponding ranking of the
19°39’47.8080” N and 75°18’1.0548” E longitude. It districts. It may be observed that the VI of the least
covers 3,07,713 km2 and has 36 districts. vulnerable districts in the state is >0.5 and the VIs vary
Maharashtra has a tropical climate. It has three over a very small range. The range of VIs was divided
distinct seasons: summer (March-May), monsoon into three equal intervals to identify relatively high
(June-September), and winter (October-February). vulnerability (~0.63-0.70), moderate vulnerability
Summers are extremely hot with temperatures rising (~0.57-0.63), and relatively low vulnerability (~0.50-
from 22°C to as high as 43°C. In winter, the temperature 0.57) categories of districts. Nandurbar, Jalna, Dhule,
varies from 12°C to 34°C. Rainfall varies from region to Thane, Palghar, Buldhana, Washim, Yavatmal, and
region. Districts such as Thane, Raigad, Ratnagiri, and Hingoli were found to be in the first category. The
Sindhudurg receive heavy rainfall with an average of map showing the categorisation of districts is given
200 cm, whereas Nashik, Pune, Ahmednagar, Dhule,
in Figure 59.
Jalgaon, Satara, Sangli, Solapur, and parts of Kolhapur
receivea rainfall of less than 50 cm. The major drivers contributing to vulnerability of
For the district-level integrated vulnerability the districts are low road density (32 districts), lack
assessment a set of 14 indicators were selected. These of forest area per 100 rural population (31 districts),
indicators along with their dimensions and functional lack of crop insurance schemes (20 districts), and a
relationships are given in Table 21. Mumbai was high percentage of marginal and small operational
excluded for the present analysis, because it is a big landholders. Other drivers are a high prevalence of
city with very different characteristics from the other rainfed agriculture, i.e., lack of irrigation facilities (16
districts. Equal weights were assigned to all indicators districts). Figure 60 depicts the drivers of vulnerability
to calculate the VIs. of the state.

Table 21: List of indicators used for the assessment of district level vulnerability for Maharashtra

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Livestock to human ratio Adaptive Capacity Negative

% of marginal and small operational holders Sensitivity Positive

% area covered under centrally funded crop insurance (PMFBY, WBCIS) Adaptive Capacity Negative

Proportion of rain-fed agriculture Sensitivity Positive

Forest area per 100 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative

% Women’s participation in workforce Adaptive Capacity Negative

Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative

Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative

Health infrastructure per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative

IMR Sensitivity Positive

% HH with improved drinking water source Adaptive Capacity Negative

% HH using improved sanitation facility Adaptive Capacity Negative

% of female literacy rate Adaptive Capacity Negative

Coefficient of variation/ yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive

76
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 58: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts of Maharashtra

Nandurbar

Dhule
Amravati Nagpur Gondiya
.
Jalgaon Bhandara
Akola Wardha
Buldana
Nashik Washim
Aurangabad Yavatmal Chandrapur
Palghar
Palghar Jalna Garhchiroli
Hingoli
Thane Ahmadnagar Parbhani
Mumbai Suburban Bid
Mumbai City Nanded
Raigarh Pune
Latur
Osmanabad

Satara Solapur

Ratnagiri
Sangli
Vulnerability Index
Mumbai City
Kolhapur Relatively High Vulnerable (0.631-0.695)
Sindhudurg Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.566-0.630)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.502-0.565)

100 50 0 100 Kilometers

Figure 59: Map of districts of Maharashtra with respect to categories of vulnerability

77
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 60: Drivers of vulnerability in Maharashtra (length of the bar representing the number of districts in
which the indicator acts as a driver of vulnerability)

3.15. Manipur
Manipur covers an area of 22,327 km2 which constitute is presented in Table 22. Equal weights were assigned
0.7% of the total geographical area of the country. It to all indicators.
lies between the latitude of 23° 83’ N and longitude
of 94° 45’ E. The average altitude of the valley is 760m District-level VIs and the related maps are presented in
above sea level, while the maximum altitude reaches Figure 61- Figure 62. The highest value of vulnerability
up to 3000 m in the upper ranges. Although the valley was obtained for Uphurl District (0.74) and the lowest
region is only 10% of the total geographical area of for Bishnupur (0.37).
the state, its population density is as high as 730 per The range of the VIs was then divided into three
km2 as opposed to the population density in the hills categories: relatively high vulnerability (>0.62),
with just 61 per km2. relatively moderate vulnerability (~0.50-0.62), and
The climate of Manipur is classified as tropical. It is relatively low vulnerability (0.37-0.50). Three districts
largely influenced by the topography of this hilly (Ukhrul, Churachandpur, Tamenglong) fall under the
region. The state experiences a warm climate with an first category, 4 under the second, and the remaining
average temperature of 32°C and annual rainfall of 2 under the last category.
about 1500 mm. Like elsewhere, its climate is slowly Major drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure
getting warmer and moving above the comfort level 63.Three indicators were found to be the main drivers
of the people. Also, rainfall has become very erratic. of vulnerability: lack of area covered under crop
The area of the state is divided into 16 districts, of insurance, lack of implementation of MGNREGA,
which 7 districts were newly created. As a result, data and high prevalence of landless, marginal and small
was mainly available for the previous 9 districts only. farmers (land <5 acre). Ensuring crops can be a safety
Consequently, the present district-level vulnerability net, which essentially will help farmers to cope with
assessment was conducted in these 9 districts only, crop failure due to climate hazards. While smaller land
based on 7 indicators related to agriculture. The list holdings are unavoidable features of hilly areas, crop
of indicators used in the present assessment along insurance and better implementation of MGNREGA
with their functional relationships with vulnerability would definitely be important safely nets from the
state.

78
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 22: Indicators used for district-level agricultural vulnerability assessment for Manipur

Adaptive Capacity/ Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Percentage crop area covered under crop insurance Adaptive capacity Negative
Total number of livestock per 1000 rural households Adaptive capacity Negative
Average person days employment provided per household (MGNREGA) Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage net area under agriculture to total geographical area Sensitivity Positive
Percentage of landless, marginal and small farmers (landholding <5 acre) Sensitivity Positive
Percentage of net rain-fed area to net sown area Sensitivity Positive
Yield variability in food grain Sensitivity Positive

Figure 61: Vulnerability indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Manipur with respect to agricultural sector

.
Senapati

Ukhrul
Tamenglong

Imphal WestImphal East

Imphal East

Thoubal
Bishnupur

Churachandpur
Chandel

Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.62-0.75)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.50-0.62)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.37-0.50)
25 12.5 0 25 Kilometers

Figure 62: Map showing district-level agricultural vulnerability category in Manipur

79
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 63: Drivers of agricultural vulnerability in Manipur (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the
indicator acts as a driver of vulnerability)

3.16. Meghalaya
Meghalaya is located in the north-eastern part in 3.16.1. Block - level integrated
India and is a part of the Indian Himalayan Region, vulnerability assessment
spreading over an area of 22,429 km2. It is divided
into 11 districts covering 46 Blocks. Its main economy For the block-level integrated vulnerability assessment,
is agrarian: 80% of the population depends directly the indicators mentioned in Table 23 were used.
and indirectly on agriculture. This sector contributes The weights were assigned based on a PCA, also
22% to the GSDP. Employment and income generation mentioned in Table 23.
also depend to a great extent on agriculture. Since the
The block-level vulnerability shows that the range of
area is prone to floods and soil erosion, the agriculture
VI is 0.44 (Zikzak block) to 0.65 (Thadlaskein block).
sector is particularly vulnerable.
The range was divided into 3 categories based
The state is influenced by the south-west monsoon on 3 equal intervals: relatively high vulnerability
and the north-east winter wind and characterised (0.582-0.651), relatively moderate vulnerability
by a temperate climate. While the state receives the (0.513-0.581), and relatively low vulnerability
highest amount of rainfall in the country, the average (0.444-0.512). Thalesian Block was found the most
rainfall varies from 4000 mm to 11,436 mm with the vulnerable. Other than Thadlaskein, the blocks of
maximum rainfall occurring over the southern slopes Ranikor, Laskein, Mawkynrew, Mawthadraishan,
of the Khasi Hills. Temperatures range between 2ᵒC to Mairang, Saipung, Mawryngkneng, Amlarem, Shella
35ᵒC, depending on the location. Bholaganj, Ronggara, Gasuapara, Dalu, Khliehriat,
Jirang, Rongram, Khatarshnong Laitkroh, Kharkutta,
The present report includes two types of assessments Mawphlang, Dadenggre, Pynursla also fall in the high
for the state: a block-level assessment of integrated vulnerability category. Relatively lower vulnerability
vulnerability and a district-level assessment of was observed in Zakzaky Block (0.44), while blocks
agricultural vulnerability. such as Betasing and Mylliem also fall under the
relatively low vulnerability category.

80
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

In the current assessment, the drivers were identified, was noted that in all the Blocks the percentage of
based on the percent contribution of each indicator households with a Kisan credit card with the credit
across all blocks to the overall VIs of all indicators limit of Rs.50,000 was less than 2% except for Zikzak
averaged across all blocks. Vulnerability was found to which, surprisingly, has 16%. This is an indication of
be mainly driven by 5 indicators: lack of Anganwadi the degree of vulnerability of farming households in
Centres per 1000 ha, lack of distribution of Kisan the State. Additionally, the net irrigated area is only
credit card with the credit limit of Rs.50,000 and 14.45% of the net sown area and irrigation is almost
above and household income, lack of forest area non-existent in some blocks, significantly reducing the
per 1000 rural population and lack of irrigation. It adaptive capacity of the agricultural sector.

Table 23: Indicators used for block-level assessment for Meghalaya and weights assigned

Adaptive Capacity Functional relationship

Indicators Weights
/ Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Proportion of households with monthly income of the highest Sensitivity Positive 0.081
earning household member < Rs. 5000/-
Livestock per 1000 rural household Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.075
Percentage of rural households with no land- ownership Sensitivity Positive 0.058
Women’s participation in the workforce Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.061
Forest area per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.075
Value of output of horticulture /Value of output of agriculture Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.068
Area net irrigated/ Net sown area Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.054
Uield variability in food grain Sensitivity Positive 0.065
Drainage density Sensitivity Positive 0.053
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.071
Total rural banks per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.070
Average person days/household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.074
NRM works per 1000 ha Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.058
Households having Kisan credit card with credit limit of Rs.50,000 Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.064
(percentage)
Anganwadi Centres per 1000 ha Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.074

Figure 64: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) of the blocks in Meghalaya

81
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Tikrikilla Umling
.
Resubelpara Kharkutta Jirang
Dadenggre
Selsella Umsning
Songsak Rongjeng Mairang
Rongram
MawshynrutNongstoin Mylliem Thadlaskein
Betasing Samanda Mawryngkneng Laskein
Mawthadraishan
Gambegre Mawphlang
Zikzak ChokpotBaghmara Mawkynrew
Mawkyrwat
Dalu Khatarshnong Laitkroh
Gasuapara Ronggara Ranikor Shella BholaganjPynurslaAmlarem Khliehriat Saipung
Mawsynram

Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.582-0.651)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.513-0.581)
30 15 0 30 Kilometers Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.444-0.512)

Figure 65: Map showing vulnerability categories of Meghalaya at block level

Figure 66: Drivers of vulnerability in the block-level analysis in Meghalaya (percentage contribution of each indicator to overall
vulnerability)

82
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.16.2. District - level agricultural were found to be highly vulnerable with a VI value of
0.784 followed by the South-West Khasi hills (0.78)
vulnerability assessment of and West Khasi Hills (0.67). The South-West Garo Hills
Meghalaya District is the least vulnerable of all (0.25), followed by
the West Garo Hills (0.43). The drivers were identified
The indicators used for the district-level assessment (Figure 69), based on the percent contribution of
of the agricultural sector in Meghalaya have been each indicator across all districts to the overall VIs
presented in Table 24 along with the weights attached. of all indicators averaged across all districts. Out of
A Principal Component Analysis was run to calculate 14, 5 indicators were found to contribute to 50% of
weights and then the analysis was done. District-level the state’s agricultural vulnerability: low percentage
VIs and the related maps are presented in Figure of rural households with a Kisan credit card with
67 - Figure 68. The VI value for Meghalaya ranges limit of Rs.50,000 & above (12%), lack of main and
between 0.25-0.78. Based on this value, the districts local markets (11%), low road density (10%), lack of
were categorised into 3 classes: relatively high (~0.60- number of NRM works per 1000 ha (9%), and low
0.78), relatively moderate (~0.42-0.60), and relatively livestock to human ratio (8%).
low (~0.25-0.42) vulnerability. The East Jaintia Hills
Table 24: Indicators for district-level assessment of the agricultural sector in Meghalaya

Functional
Adaptive
relationship Weights
Indicators Capacity/
with (WI)
Sensitivity
Vulnerability
Proportion of net irrigated area to net sown area Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.03
Yield variability in food grain Sensitivity Positive 0.06
Drainage density Sensitivity Positive 0.08
Percentage of rural households with no Land -ownership Sensitivity Positive 0.08
Percentage of agricultural area under slopes >45 degree Sensitivity Positive 0.08
Percentage share of total crop produced in both agricultural & horticultural crops Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.06
Value of output of total horticulture (only perennial) / Value of agricultural output Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.07
Livestock to human ratio Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.08
Percentage rural households having Kisan Credit Card with limit of Rs. 50,000 Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.08
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.09
No. of main & local markets per geographical area Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.08
Diversity index of main income source for rural households Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.06
Average person days employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.06
No. of NRM works/ 1000 ha (under MGNREGA) Adaptive Capacity Negative 0.08

Figure 67: Agricultural vulnerability indices (VIs)and ranking of districts in Meghalaya

83
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

.
North Garo Hills Ribhoi

West Garo Hills

East Garo Hills
West Khasi Hills

South West Garo Hills West Jaintia Hills

East Khasi Hills
South Garo Hills South West Khasi Hills
East Jaintia Hills

Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.604-0.784
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.425-0.603)
30 15 0 30 Kilometers Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.245-0.424)

Figure 68: Map showing agriculture vulnerability categories of Meghalaya at district level

Figure 69: Drivers of agricultural vulnerability (percentage contribution of each indicator to overall vulnerability)

84
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.17. Mizoram
Mizoram is the southernmost state among the seven ha (2.8%) in the state; the area with slope land of 10
sisters of north-east India. It is located in the eastern to 33% is only 5,09,365 ha.
Himalayan region at 21o 58’ and 24o 35’ N latitude
and 92o 15’ and 93o 29’ E longitude. It falls within In this report, agricultural vulnerability assessment of
the Patkai Hill Range of the southern foothills of the the state has been presented. The state also carried
Eastern Himalayas and has a hilly, rugged terrain with out a socio-economic vulnerability assessment which
steep slopes and deep valleys. The altitude ranges has not been presented in the report. For agricultural
from 50 m to slightly over 2000 m above sea level. vulnerability, 15 indicators related to agriculture
The total geographical area of Mizoram is 21,087 km2, were considered. The list of indicators along with
divided into 11 administrative districts, of which 3 their functional relationships with vulnerability is
were newly formed. presented in Table 25. All the indicators have assigned
equal weights for the analysis.
Overall, Mizoram has a moderate climate. At the
foothills and in the valleys, a typical tropical climate District-level VIs and the related maps are presented in
prevails, while in the mid-region mostly a subtropical, Figure 70- Figure 71. The highest value of vulnerability
moist climate is found. The state receives an average was obtained for Lawngtlai (0.66) and the lowest for
rainfall of 2519.3 mm every year. Rainfall data from Kolasib (0.29). Then the range of the VIs was divided
1986 to 2019 show a variability ranging from 3121.9 into three categories: relatively high vulnerability
in 2007 to 1930.3 in 2019 with a linear decreasing (0.53-0.66), relatively moderate vulnerability (0.41-
trend of 9.19 mm every year. The temperature is quite 0.53), and relatively low vulnerability (0.29-0.41).
pleasant with an average of 11o to 21o C in winter and After the categorisation it was found that 6 districts
20oC to 30oC in summer. Data from 1986 up to 2017 fall under the first category (Lowngtlai, Siaha, Mamit,
show a slightly increasing rate in the yearly average Serchhip, Lunglei, and Champhai).
maximum (0.01oC), mean (0.04oC) and minimum Based on the percent contribution of each indicator
(0.08oC) temperatures. across all districts to the aggregated VI, a lack of
It is estimated that more than 70% of the total horticulture output to agriculture output was found
population is engaged in agriculture. The age-old to contribute the highest (9.2%). This was followed by
practice of Jhum cultivation is carried out annually a large area under rain-fed crop land (8.6%), a high
by many people living in rural areas. About 5% of the number of farmers with limited landholdings (8.0%),
total area is under cultivation of which only 11.47% is and a limited area with fertile soil (7.9 %). These are
under irrigation. The slope area of 0 to 15% that offers the top major drivers of overall vulnerability. The rest
a possibility for wet rice cultivation, is a mere 74,644 of the percent contribution of other indicators can be
seen in Figure 72.

Terrace farming, Manipur

85
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 25: Indicators used for district-level agricultural vulnerability assessment for Mizoram

Functional
Adaptive Capacity/
Indicators relationship with
Sensitivity
Vulnerability
Percentage area under rain-fed agriculture Sensitivity Positive
Yield variability in food grain Sensitivity Positive
Water stress Sensitivity Positive
Drainage density Sensitivity Positive
Percentage of landless, marginal and small farmers (land <5 acre) Sensitivity Positive
Soil fertility Adaptive Capacity Negative
Groundwater availability Adaptive Capacity Negative
Crop diversification Adaptive Capacity Negative
Value of output of total horticulture (only perennial) / value of agricultural Adaptive Capacity Negative
output
Total number of livestock per 1000 rural households Adaptive Capacity Negative
Road connectivity Adaptive Capacity Negative
Access to market Adaptive Capacity Negative
Income diversification within agriculture sector (income from agriculture, Adaptive Capacity Negative
livestock, forestry, and fishing)
MGNREGA (person days employment generated per 100 days) Adaptive Capacity Negative
Number of NRM works per 1000 ha (MGNREGS) Adaptive Capacity Negative

Figure 70: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) in the agricultural sector and ranking of districts in Mizoram

86
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Kolasib .
Aizawl
Mamit

Champhai

Serchhip

Lunglei

Lawngtlai Saiha

Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.644-0.783)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.505-0.643)
40 20 0 40 Kilometers Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.367-0.504)

Figure 71: Map showing agricultural vulnerability categories of Mizoram at district level

Figure 72: Drivers of agricultural vulnerability (percentage contribution of each indicator to overall vulnerability)

87
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.18. Nagaland
Nagaland is located between 25o10’N- 27o4’N latitude District-level VIs and the related maps are presented in
and 93o15’E- 95o20’E longitude. It is one of the smaller Figure 73-Figure 74. The highest value of vulnerability
states of India covering a total geographical area of was obtained for Kohima District (0.737) and the
16,579 km2, which accounts for a measly 0.5 percent lowest for Dimapur (0.36). In fact, the VIs of Kohima
of the total geographical area of the country and and Dimapur are quite high and low, respectively,
consists of 11 districts. Nagaland is almost entirely compared to the rest of the districts in Nagaland.
hilly, except along the foothills bordering the Assam Dividing the rage of VIs (~0.36 – 0.74) into 3 equal
plains. intervals, the following categories are obtained:
districts with relatively high vulnerability (0.611-
The climate of Nagaland is humid and tropical. Minor 0.737), that with moderate vulnerability (0.486-
variations are caused by differences in physiography. 0.611), and relatively low vulnerability (0.126-0.486).
Dimapur district, which is a plain area, has a warm Kohima is the only district falling in the first category
and subtropical climate. The heavy monsoon rain and Dimapur the only one in the last category. The rest
normally occurs from May to August with occasional of the districts fall under the category of moderately
dry spells from September to October. Owing to vulnerable.
the varied topography and relief the annual rainfall
varies from 1000 mm to over 3000 mm at different In the current assessment, the drivers were identified
places with an average of 2000 mm. During winter, based on the percent contribution of each indicator
frost is common at high elevations, although the across all districts to the aggregated VIs value. Most
temperature generally does not drop below 4°C. The indicators appeared to contribute almost evenly as
summer temperature stands between 16°C to 31°C. the drivers of agriculture vulnerability. The major
drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure 75.
The present district-level vulnerability assessment is The 4 indicators that contributed most to drivers of
conducted for all 11 districts based on 11 indicators agriculture vulnerability in Nagaland are high drainage
related to agriculture. The list of indicators along with density that intensifies vulnerability to soil erosion
their functional relationships with vulnerability is and affects soil fertility in the area, lack of irrigation,
presented in Table 26. Equal weights were assigned a smaller number of NRM works per 1000 ha and low
to all indicators. crop diversification.
Table 26: Indicators used for district-level agriculture vulnerability assessment for Nagaland

Functional
Adaptive Capacity /
Indicators relationship with
Sensitivity
Vulnerability
Percentage of net irrigated area to net sown area Adaptive capacity Negative

Yield variability in food grain Sensitivity Positive

Water scarcity Sensitivity Positive

Drainage density Sensitivity Positive

Percentage rural household with no land Sensitivity Positive

Crop diversification Adaptive Capacity Negative

Total number of livestock per 1000 rural households Adaptive capacity Negative

Percentage of villages connected by surfaced roads Adaptive capacity Negative

Access to market Adaptive capacity Negative

Average person days employed under MGNREGA Adaptive capacity Negative

Number of NRM works per 1,000 ha (MGNREGA and/or other schemes) Adaptive Capacity Negative

88
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 73: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) in agriculture and ranking of districts in Nagaland

Mon
.
Longleng
Mokokchung

Wokha Tuensang

Zunheboto

Kiphire
Dimapur Kohima

Phek

Peren
Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.611-0.737)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerale (0.610-0.486)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.360-0.485)
25 12.5 0 25 Kilometers

Figure 74: Map showing agricultural vulnerability categories of Nagaland at district level

89
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 75: Drivers of agriculture vulnerability in Nagaland (percentage contribution of each indicator to overall vulnerability)

3.19. Orissa
Orissa is situated at the latitude of 17° 31’N to 22° 31’ District-level VIs and the related maps are presented in
N and longitude of 81° 31’ E to 87° 29’ E. The state Figure 76- Figure 77. The highest value of vulnerability
is spread over an area of 155,707 km2 and extends was obtained for Malkangiri District (0.73) and the
for 1030 km from north to south and 500 km from lowest for Khurdha (0.39). The range of VIs was
east to west. It is divided into 30 districts which are divided into three categories: relatively high (~0.62-
subdivided into 314 blocks. With a 480 km coastline 0.73), relatively moderate (~0.50-0.62) and relatively
that is prone to climate-mediated cyclones and low vulnerability (~0.39-0.48). After categorisation
coastal erosion, and water resources dependent on it was observed that 7 districts falls under the first
monsoons, Orissa is relatively highly vulnerable to category and 15 under the second; 8 districts are in
climate change. Based on climate type, it has been the third and last category. Malkhangiri, Nayangarh,
divided into ten agro-climatic zones. The normal Gajapati, Kalahandi, Rayagada, and Koraput are the
rainfall of the state is 1451.2 mm. About 75 to 80% districts in the high vulnerability category.
of rainfall is received from June to September. Floods,
droughts, and cyclones occur almost every year in Four out of the 9 indicators emerged as the main
varying intensities. drivers of vulnerability Figure 78: lack of health
infrastructure, lack of area under crop insurance,
The present district-level vulnerability assessment rainfed agriculture, and lack of forest area per 1000
was conducted in all 30 districts based on 9 indicators. rural population. Among the 4 selected drivers, health
The list of indicators along with their functional infrastructure per 100 population. It shows two of the
relationships with vulnerability is presented in Table drivers are related to agricultural sector which may be
27. Equal weights were assigned to each indicator to considered for adaptation interventions.
calculate the VIs.

90
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 27: Indicators used for district-level assessment for Orissa

Functional
Adaptive Capacity /
Indicators relationship with
Sensitivity
vulnerability

Percentage area covered under centrally funded crop insurance Adaptive Capacity Negative

Proportion of rainfed agriculture Sensitivity Positive

Forest area per 100 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative

Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative

Health infrastructure per 1000 population Sensitivity Positive

Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive

Percentage of households with improved drinking water source Adaptive Capacity Negative

Female literacy rate Adaptive Capacity Negative

Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive

Figure 76: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Orissa

91
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Sundargarh

Jharsuguda Mayurbhanj

Baleshwar
.
Sambalpur Debagarh Kendujhar
Bargarh
Bhadrak
Subarnapur Anugul DhenkanalJajapur
Bauda Kendrapara
Balangir Kendrapara
Nuapada Cuttack
Nayagarh Jagatsinghapur
Kandhamal
Khordha
Puri
Kalahandi
Ganjam
Nabarangapur
Rayagada
Gajapati

Koraput

Malkangiri
Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.620-0.735)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.504-0.619)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.389-0.503)
110 55 0 110 Kilometers

Figure 77: Map showing vulnerability categories of Orissa at district level

Figure 78: Drivers of agriculture vulnerability in Odisha (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the
indicator acts as a driver of vulnerability)

92
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.20. Punjab
Punjab lies in the north-western part of India, 28. Equal weights were assigned to each indicator to
extending from 9.30° to 32.32° North and from 73.55° calculate the VIs.
to 76.50° East. The state covers an area of 50,362 km2.
Its small size lends easy accessibility to all its interior District-level VIs and the related maps are presented in
parts. There are 22 administrative districts in the state. Figure 79-Figure 80. The highest value of vulnerability
Agriculture and allied sectors are the backbone of was obtained for Tarn Taran District (0.74) and the
the rural economy of Punjab. The state has Irrigation lowest for Ludhiana (0.47). The range of the VIs was
facilities which forms one of the best networks in the divided into three equal intervals to obtain three
country. Around 99.6% of gross area sown and 99.9% categories: relatively high (0.65-0.74), relatively
of net area sown are irrigated in the state. About moderate (0.56-65), and relatively low vulnerability
75% of irrigation depends on groundwater, but this is (0.47-0.56). After categorisation it was observed that
declining at an alarming rate. 3 districts falls under the first category (Tarn Taran,
Moga, Gurdaspur), and 14 under the second; 5
There are considerable spatial differences in the districts are in the third and the last category.
climate in Punjab: the region lying near the foothills
of the Himalayas receives heavy rainfall, whereas in 6 indicators emerged as the main drivers of
the region lying at a distant from the hills, rainfall vulnerability: low value of output of total horticulture
remains scanty and the temperature remains high. (perennial) against value of agriculture output,
Maximum temperatures occur in mid-May and June lack of forest area per 1000 rural population, lack
with temperatures above 40°C in the entire region of implementation of MGNREGA, low women’s
during this period. Minimum winter temperature of participation in workforce, a smaller number of rural
the region is found between December and February banks per 1000 rural population, number of NRM
with an average below 5°. The districts along the works per 1000 ha. Among the 6 selected drivers, the
Shivalik Hills, i.e., Gurdaspur, Pathankot, Hoshiarpur, value of output of horticulture (perennial) against the
and Ropar receive maximum rain. value of agriculture output has a greater NV value
than the threshold in 17 districts. Further, forest area
The present district-level vulnerability assessment was per 1000 rural population and average person days
conducted for all 22 districts based on 18 indicators. per household employed under MGNREGA were
The list of indicators along with their functional observed to be accountable for the vulnerability of
relationships with vulnerability is presented in Table 17 districts as well. Major drivers of vulnerability are
presented in Figure 81.

Table 28: List of indicators used for the assessment of district-level vulnerability for Punjab

Functional
Adaptive Capacity
Indicators relationship with
/ Sensitivity
vulnerability
Per capita income Adaptive Capacity Negative
Livestock per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Female workforce (main & marginal works) Adaptive Capacity Negative
Forest area per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative
Rural banks per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
Cases of vector-borne diseases per 1000 population Sensitivity Positive
Cases of water-borne diseases per 1000 population Sensitivity Positive
Number of doctors, specialists, health assistants and health workers per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive
Water Scarcity Sensitivity Positive
Number of NRM works per 1000 ha Adaptive Capacity Negative
Value of output horticulture (perennial) against value of agriculture output Adaptive Capacity Negative

93
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 79: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Punjab

Gurdaspur
Pathankot

.
Amritsar Hoshiarpur

Tarn Taran Kapurthala

Kapurthala
Jalandhar Rupnagar
Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar

Firozpur Ludhiana
Moga
Faridkot Fatehgarh SahibSahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar

Barnala
Fazilka Muktsar Patiala
Bathinda Sangrur

Mansa
Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.649-0.739)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.558-0.648)
40 20 0 40 Kilometers
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.468-0.557)

Figure 80: Categories of vulnerability of the districts in Punjab

94
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 81: Drivers of vulnerability in the districts of Punjab (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the
indicator acts as a driver of vulnerability)

3.21. Rajasthan
Rajasthan is located at the latitude of 23°4’N to indicators along with their functional relationships
30°11’N and longitude of 69°29’E to 78°17’E. The with vulnerability is presented in Table 29.
state has 4 distinct regions, the Western Desert with
barren hills, level rocky and sandy plains, the Aravalli 3 indicators, percentage of net irrigated out of net
Hills, and the South-Eastern Plateau. It covers an area sown area, percentage households using improved
of 3,42,239 km2 and has 33 districts. A large area is sanitation facility, and percentage households with
covered with desert and there is a very small forest improved drinking water source, were initially
cover. considered but finally dropped from the analysis due
to their high correlation with other indicators. Equal
The state has a climate that varies from extremely weights were assigned to each indicator to calculate
arid to humid. The humid zone spans the southeast the VIs.
and east. Except in the hills, the heat during summer
is intense everywhere, with temperatures in June, District-level VIs and the related maps are presented in
the warmest month, typically rising from about Figure 82- Figure 83. The highest value of vulnerability
30° to 40oC daily. The western desert has little rain, was obtained for Dholpur District (0.665) and the
averaging about 100 mm, annually. In the southeast, lowest for Barmer (0.432).
some areas receive almost 500 mm. The average The range of the VIs was divided into three categories:
annual temperature ranges between 0°C to 50°C and relatively high vulnerability (0.59-0.66), relatively
the average annual rainfall is in the range of 500-750 moderate vulnerability (0.51-0.59), and relatively low
mm. vulnerability (0.43-0.51).
The present district-level vulnerability assessment After categorisation it was observed that 5 districts
was conducted based on 15 indicators. The list of falls under the first category (Dholpur, Bharatpur,

95
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Udaypur, Dausa, and Banswara), and 11 under the 1,000 ha (under MGNREGS and/or other schemes),
second (Baran, Ajmer, Dungarpur, Rajsamand, Tonk, and low road density. Major drivers of vulnerability
Karauli, Bundi, Nagaur, Jodhpur, Alwar, and Pali); are presented in Figure 84. Among the 3 selected
and the rest, i.e., 17 districts are in the third and last drivers, the number of NRM works per 1,000 ha
category. It may be observed that the VI values for the (MGNREGS and/or other schemes) has a greater NV
state varies over a small range and all the districts are value than the threshold in 20 districts. Further, low
somewhat vulnerable and needs attention. road density was observed to be accountable for
the vulnerability of 18 districts, and forest area per
Three indicators emerged as the main drivers of 1000 rural population was found responsible for the
vulnerability: lack of forest area per 1000 rural
vulnerability of 17 districts.
population, a smaller number of NRM works per

Table 29: Indicators used for district-level assessment for Rajasthan

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with vulnerability
Per capita income Adaptive Capacity Negative
Total number of livestock per 1000 rural households Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of marginal and small farmers (land <5 acre) Sensitivity Positive
Female workforce participation Adaptive Capacity Negative
Forest area (in ha) per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative
Rural banks per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage crop area covered under crop insurance Adaptive Capacity Negative
Cases of vector-borne diseases per 1000 population Sensitivity Positive
Cases of water-borne diseases per 1000 population Sensitivity Positive
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive
Crop diversification Adaptive Capacity Negative
Number of NRM works per 1,000 ha (under MGNREGS and/or other
Adaptive Capacity Negative
schemes)
Female literacy rate Adaptive Capacity Negative

Figure 82: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Rajasthan

96
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Ganganagar
Hanumangarh
.
Bikaner Churu
Jhunjhunun

Sikar Alwar
Bharatpur
Nagaur
Jaisalmer Jaipur Dausa
Jodhpur Dhaulpur

Ajmer Karauli
TonkSawai Madhopur
Barmer Pali
Bhilwara Bundi
Jalor Rajsamand Baran
Kota
Chittaurgarh Chittaurgarh
Sirohi
Jhalawar
Udaipur
Pratapgarh
Dungarpur
Banswara Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.587-665)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.509-0.586)
140 70 0 140 Kilometers Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.432-0.508)

Figure 83: Map showing vulnerability categories vulnerability of Rajasthan at district level

Figure 84: Drivers of vulnerability in Rajasthan (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the indicator acts as
a driver of vulnerability)

97
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.22. Sikkim
The hill state of Sikkim is located between the 27o The present district-level vulnerability assessment
04’46” N to 28o 07’48” N latitudes and 88o00’55” E to was conducted for all districts based on 8 indicators.
88o 55’25” E longitudes in the north- eastern part of The list of indicators along with their functional
India dominated by the Himalayas and the high, snow- relationships with vulnerability is presented in Table
capped mountain ranges. A small portion is covered 30. Equal weights were assigned to all indicators.
by the Tibetan Plateau in the northern part. Slopes District- level VIs and the related maps are presented in
are on an average of 450, representing one of the Figure 85- Figure 86. The highest value of vulnerability
steepest altitude gradients anywhere in the world. It was obtained for East Sikkim and South Sikkim (0.7),
has 4 districts, North, South, East, and the West. followed by North Sikkim (0.6) and the lowest for
West Sikkim (0.4). The range of the VIs was divided
The sharp altitudinal variation from 300m to 8600m into three categories: relatively high vulnerability (0.6-
plays a vital role in weather and climatic conditions in 0.7), relatively moderate vulnerability (0.5-0.6), and
the state. Sikkim Himalayas consists of high mountains relatively low vulnerability (0.4-0.5). While East and
that act as barriers for the movement of monsoon South Sikkim fall under the first category, North in the
winds. Because of these general conditions one finds second and West in the third. However, in presence
high temperatures and a hot and humid climate in of very less number of districts, such categorisations
the low-lying area, a pleasant weather condition is not very meaningful.
in the mid-hill mountains, and low temperatures
and cold climatic conditions in the higher elevation Major drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure
area. A maximum temperature of over 35°C has 87. 3 indicators, viz., percentage of marginal farmer
been recorded in low-lying places like Jorethang, + small farmer, forest area per 1000 rural population,
Melli, Rangpo, and Singtam. The average annual and doctors’ availability emerged as the main drivers
temperature of Sikkim is around 18°C. responsible for the vulnerability.

Table 30: Indicators used for district-level assessment for Sikkim

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with Vulnerability

Livestock to rural population Adaptive capacity Negative

Percentage of marginal farmer + small farmer Sensitivity Positive

Percentage of women participating in the work force Adaptive capacity Negative

Proportion of unirrigated agricultural land Sensitivity Positive

Forest area (ha) per 1000 rural population Adaptive capacity Negative

Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive capacity Negative

Doctors’ available in district towns Adaptive capacity Negative

Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive

98
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 85: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Sikkim

.
North Sikkim

West Sikkim

East Sikkim

South Sikkim Vulnerability Index

Relatively High Vulnerable (0.6-0.7)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.5-0.6)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.4-0.5)
10 5 0 10 Kilometers

Figure 86: Map showing vulnerability categories of Sikkim at district level

99
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 87: Drivers of vulnerability in Sikkim (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the
indicator acts as a driver of vulnerability)

3.23. Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu extends between 8°5΄ and 13° 35΄ N fire, species extinction, and thermal discomfort are
and between 76°15΄ and 80°20΄ E with a total area major evidence of climate change in the area.
of 1,30,060 km2. There are 38 districts, of which 6
are newly constructed. According to the Tamil Nadu The present district-level vulnerability assessment
State Land Use (Planning) Policy report, more than was conducted for 31 districts based on 13 indicators.
55% of the total geographical area is agricultural land, The boundary of the districts considered are not
16% is forest area, 4% built-up area, 5% is taken up the most recent ones, given the non-availability of
by waterbodies, and 8% by wasteland. The per capita data for 6 newly created districts. Additionally, from
income of Tamil Nadu over 2016-17 is projected at the collected values it was concluded that, for a few
Rs.1,84,210. indicators, Chennai, which is a 100% urbanised district,
has a very different adaptive capacity compared to the
In the state, the summer is hot, with temperatures rest. At the same time, it experiences high stress on
rising to 43oC. November to February is the coolest natural resources such as a high-water demand. As a
winter period with temperatures around 180C. The result, Chennai is not included in the analysis. The list
maximum rainfall comes during October, November, of indicators along with their functional relationships
and December (generally considered post-monsoon), with vulnerability is presented in Table 31. Equal
whereas in the rest of the country maximum rain weights were assigned to each indicator.
falls in June, July, August, and September (usually
considered the monsoon season). Drought, water District-level VIs and the related maps are presented
depletion, soil erosion, sea water incursion, forest in Figure 88 - Figure 89. The highest value of
vulnerability was obtained for Ariyalur (0.724) and

100
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

the lowest for Kanyakumari (0.427). It shows that output, lack of forest cover area per 1000 rural
the VIs vary over a small range and the VIs of two population, low road density, high percentage of
consecutive districts are very close to each other. The marginal and small farmers (land <5 acres), and lack of
range of the VIs was divided into three categories: crop insurance scheme. Among the 5 selected drivers,
relatively high vulnerability (0.625-0.724), relatively the value of output of horticulture (only perennial)
moderate vulnerability (0.526-0.625), and relatively against the value of agricultural output is a driver
low vulnerability (0.427-0.526). Based on this for 29 districts. Further, the percentage of forest
categorisation, 9 districts are found to fall under the cover per 1000 rural population was observed to be
most vulnerable category. accountable for the vulnerability of 24 districts. Road
density and percentage of marginal and small famers
5 indicators emerged as the main drivers of (land <5 acres) are responsible for the vulnerability
vulnerability: a low value of output from horticulture of 18 districts. Crop insurance covered was found
(only perennial) as a proportion of value of agricultural responsible for the vulnerability of 17 districts.

Table 31: Indicators used for district-level assessment for Tamil Nadu

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Per capita income Adaptive capacity Negative
Livestock to human ratio (rural population) Adaptive capacity Negative
Doctors per 1000 population Adaptive capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive capacity Negative
Road density Adaptive capacity Negative
Women’s participation in labour force Adaptive capacity Negative
Forest cover per 1000 rural population Adaptive capacity Negative
Value of output of horticulture (only perennial) against value of agricultural
Adaptive capacity Negative
output
Agricultural land covered under crop insurance Adaptive capacity Negative
Proportion of rainfed agricultural land Sensitivity Positive
Percentage marginal and small farmers (land <5 acres) Sensitivity Positive
Yield variability in food grains Sensitivity Positive
Stage of groundwater extraction Sensitivity Positive

Figure 88: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Tamil Nadu

101
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Krishnagiri
Vellore

Tiruvannamalai
Thiruvallur
Chennai

Kancheepuram
.
Dharmapuri
Viluppuram
Salem
The Nilgiris Erode Cuddalore
Namakkal Perambalur
AriyalurNagappattinam
KarurTiruchirappalli
CoimbatoreTiruppur
ThanjavurThiruvarur
Nagappattinam
Dindigul Pudukkottai

Theni
Madurai Sivaganga

Virudunagar Ramanathapuram
Vulnerability Index
Chennai City
Thoothukkudi
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.625-0.724)
Tirunelveli
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.526-0.624)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.427-0.525)
Kanniyakumari
60 30 0 60 Kilometers

Figure 89: Map showing vulnerability categories of Tamil Nadu at district level

Figure 90: Drivers of vulnerability in Tamil Nadu (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the indicator acts
as a driver of vulnerability)

102
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.24. Telangana
Telangana is situated on the south-central stretch observed that a maximum number of districts (22) falls
of the Indian peninsula on the high Deccan Plateau. under the moderately vulnerable category (Rajanna
It lies between the 150 46’ and 190 47’ N latitudes Sircilla, Maha-bubabad, Jangaon, Nagarkurnool,
and 77° 16’ and 81° 43’ E longitudes. The climate Jagtial, Sangareddy, Medak, Wanaparthy, Nirmal,
is predominantly hot and dry. The mean annual Siddipet, Warangal Urban, Kamareddy, Yadadri
precipitation ranges from 490 to 1670 mm. There is a Bhuvanagiri, Nalgonda, Mahabubnagar, Jogulamba
large variation in the distribution of rainfall. The south- Gadwal, Mancherial, Bhadradri Kothagudem,
west monsoon (June- September) contributes 72% to Vikarabad, Karimnagar, Khammam). A further 5
the average annual rainfall, while the contribution of districts fall under the moderate and 3 districts under
the post-monsoon (October-December) is 20%. For the low vulnerability categories.
the pre-monsoon (March-May) it is 6% and in winter
(January-February) it is 2%. Five indicators emerged as the main drivers of
vulnerability: low per capita income, lack of forest
The present district-level vulnerability assessment area per 1000 rural population, low share of value of
was conducted for 30 districts out of the total of 31, output of total horticulture (only perennial) to value of
based on 18 indicators. In this analysis Hyderabad agriculture output, lack of doctors, specialists, health
was not included, because it is considered a wholly assistants & health Workers per 1000 population and
urban district without agricultural land. The list of a smaller number of rural banks per 1000 population.
indicators along with their functional relationships Major drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure
with vulnerability is presented in Table 32. Equal 93. Among the 5 selected drivers, the indicator of per
weights were assigned to each indicator. capita income has a greater NV than the threshold in
28 of the 30 districts. Further, the forest area per 100
District- level VIs and the related maps are presented rural population was observed to be accountable for
in Figure 91 - Figure 92. The highest VI value was the vulnerability of 22 districts. Share of value output
obtained for Kumarambheem Asifabad (0.70) and of total horticulture (for perennial) to value output
the lowest for Rangareddy (0.39). The range of the of agriculture accounts for the vulnerability of 13
VIs was divided into three categories: relatively districts, and percentage of doctors, specialists, health
high vulnerability (0.599-702), relatively moderate assistants and health workers per 1000 population
vulnerability (0.495-0.599), and relatively low and number of rural banks per 1000 population is
vulnerability (0.391-0.495). After categorisation it was responsible for the vulnerability of 12 districts.

Table 32: List of indicators used for the assessment of district-level vulnerability for Telangana

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with vulnerability
Per capita income Adaptive Capacity Negative
Female literacy rate Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of landless, marginal, and small farmers Sensitivity Positive
Livestock to human ratio or per ha (sheep and goats) Adaptive Capacity Negative
Women’s participation in the labour force Adaptive Capacity Negative
Forest area (in ha) per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Value of output of horticulture (only perennial) against value of agricultural output Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage area under unirrigated (rainfed) agriculture (i.e., total area-net sown
Sensitivity Positive
area)
Yield variability of food grain Sensitivity Positive
Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative
Rural bank per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative
% crop area covered under crop insurance Adaptive Capacity Negative
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive
No of doctors, specialists, health assistants & health workers per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Cases of Water borne diseases per 1000 of population Sensitivity Positive
Cases of Vector borne diseases per 1000 of population Sensitivity Positive

103
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 91: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Telangana

Adilabad

Nirmal
Kumurambheem Asifabad

Mancherial
.
Jagtial
Nizamabad
Peddapalle
Rajanna Sircilla
Kamareddy KarimnagarJayashankar Bhupalpally

SiddipetWarangal Urban
Medak Warangal Rural
Sangareddy
Jangaon Bhadradri Kothagudem
Medchal Malkajgiri Mahabubabad
Hyderabad Yadadri Bhuvanagiri
Vikarabad
Khammam
Rangareddy
Suryapet
Mahabubnagar Nalgonda

WanaparthyNagarkurnool Vulnerability Index

Hyderabad (city)
Jogulamba Gadwal Relatively High Vulnerable (0.594-0.688)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.500-0.593)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.406-0.499)
70 35 0 70 Kilometers

Figure 92: Map showing vulnerability categories of Telangana districts

104
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 93: Drivers of vulnerability in Telangana (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the indicator acts as
a driver of vulnerability)

3.25. Tripura
Tripura spreads over 10,491 km2, located precisely high to low vulnerability. The highest value of
from 22°56’N to 24°32’N and 91°09’E to 92°20’E. vulnerability was obtained for Unakoti (0.760) and
The state is characterised by hill ranges, valleys, and the lowest for South Tripura (0.426). The range of
plains, and a tropical savanna climate. The state has the VIs was divided into three categories: relatively
8 districts. The climate of Tripura exhibits a strong high vulnerability (0.649-0.760), relatively moderate
seasonal rhythm. It is a warm and humid tropical vulnerability (0.537-0.649), and relatively low
climate with five distinct seasons: spring, summer, vulnerability (0.426-0.537). Unkoti and Dalai are the
monsoon, autumn, and winter. 2 districts falling under the first category.
The present district-level vulnerability assessment Major drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure
was conducted for 8 districts, based on 10 indicators 96. They are low livestock to human ratio (7 districts),
related to agriculture, biophysical, institutional lack of access of improved drinking source (5 districts),
infrastructure, health, and socio-economic and low percentage of female literacy rate (4 districts), low
livelihood practices. The list of indicators along with cropping intensity (3 districts), high yield variability
their functional relationships with vulnerability is of food grains (3 districts), lack of implementation
presented in Table 33. Equal weights were assigned of MGNREGA (2 districts), high IMR (2 districts), low
to each indicator. proportion of area under forest (2 districts), lack of
health infrastructure per 1000 population (1 district),
District-level VIs and the related maps are presented and high proportion of BPL households (1 district).
in Figure 94 - Figure 95. Districts were ranked from

105
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Table 33: Indicators used for district-level assessment for Tripura

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with vulnerability
Percentage of BPL households Sensitivity Positive
Percentage of area under forest Adaptive Capacity Negative
Livestock per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage of households with improved Drinking water source Adaptive Capacity Negative
Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive
Female literacy rate Adaptive Capacity Positive
Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Negative
Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Positive
Cropping intensity Adaptive Capacity Positive
Health infrastructure per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Positive

Figure 94: Vulnerability Indices (Vis) and ranking of districts in Tripura

Unokoti
.
Khowai North Tripura
West Tripura
Dhalai

Sipahijala
Gomati

Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.649-0.760)
South Tripura
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.537-0.648)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.426-0.536)

25 12.5 0 25 Kilometers

Figure 95: Map showing vulnerability categories of Tripura at district level

106
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 96: Drivers of vulnerability in Tripura (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the indicator acts as a
driver of vulnerability)

3.26. Uttar Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh (UP) is situated between the latitude of with their functional relationships with vulnerability
24° to 31°N and longitude of 77° to 84° E. The state is represented in Table 34. 3 indicators, proportion
has 75 districts, of which 5 are newly created for which of rainfed agriculture, percentage of households
data are not yet available. Its economy predominantly using improved sanitation facility, and percentage
depends on agriculture (66% farm workers). of female literacy rate were initially considered, but
finally dropped from the analysis due to their high
The climate of the state is primarily defined as humid correlation with other indicators. Equal weights were
subtropical with dry winters, with parts of Western assigned to each indicator to calculate the VIs.
UP considered to be semi-arid. Variations do exist in
different parts of the large state, but the uniformity of District-level VIs and the related maps are presented in
the vast Indo-Gangetic Plain forming the bulk of the Figure 97 - Figure 98. The highest value of vulnerability
state gives a predominantly single climatic pattern was obtained for Sitapur (0.694) and the lowest for
to it with minor regional variations. UP has a climate Lalitpur (0.403). The range of the VIs was divided
of extremes. With temperature fluctuating from 0 into five categories: relatively very high vulnerability
°C to 50 °C in several parts of the state, and cyclical (0.636-0.694), relatively high vulnerability (0.577-
droughts and floods due to unpredictable rains. The 0.636), relatively moderate vulnerability (0.519-
summers are extremely hot, winters cold, and the 0.577), relatively low vulnerability (0.461-0.519) and
rainy season can be either very wet or very dry. relatively very low vulnerability (0.403-0.461). After
categorisation it was observed that 14 districts fall
The present district-level vulnerability assessment under the relatively very high vulnerable category
was conducted for 70 districts since data for newly (Sitapur, Shahjahanpur, Bahraich, Ghaziabad, Pilibhit,
constructed districts are not available. It was based Budaun, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Sant Ravidas Nagar,
on 13 indicators related to agriculture, biophysical, Kheri, Hardoi, Kushinagar, Saharanpur, Farrukhabad,
institutional infrastructure, health, and socio-economic Balrampur).
and livelihood practices. The list of indicators along

107
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Major drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure the percentage area covered under centrally funded
99. Five indicators emerged as the main drivers of crop insurance (PMFBY, WBCIS) was observed to be
vulnerability: high percentage of marginal and small accountable for the vulnerability of 55 districts. The
operational holders, low percentage area covered percentage of marginal and small operational holders
under centrally funded crop insurance , lack of forest accounts for the vulnerability of 49 districts. NRM
area per 1000 rural population, less number of NRM works per 1000 ha (MGNREGA) is responsible for the
works per 1000 ha (MGNREGs), and the lack of vulnerability of 30 districts, and health infrastructure
health infrastructure per 1000 population. Among per 1000 population for the vulnerability of 22
the 5 selected drivers, forest area per 1000 rural districts.
population is a driver in 64 of the 70 districts. Further,

Table 34: Indicators used for district-level assessment for Uttar Pradesh

Functional
Adaptive Capacity /
Indicators relationship with
Sensitivity
Vulnerability
Livestock per 1000 rural households Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage of marginal and small operational holders Sensitivity Positive

Forest area (in ha) per1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative
Percentage area covered under centrally funded crop insurance (PMFBY,
Adaptive Capacity Negative
WBCIS)
Yield variability of food grain Sensitivity Positive

Women’s participation in workforce Adaptive Capacity Negative

Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative

Average person days/household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative

Number of NRM works per 1,000 ha (MGNREGA and/or other schemes) Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage households with electricity Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage households with improved drinking water source Adaptive Capacity Negative

Health infrastructure per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative

Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive

108
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 97: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Uttar Pradesh

109
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

.
Saharanpur

ShamliMuzaffarnagar

BaghpatMeerut Moradabad
GhaziabadHapurAmroha Rampur
Sambhal
Gautam Buddha NagarBulandshahr Bareilly Pilibhit
Budaun Kheri
Aligarh Shahjahanpur
Kasganj BahraichShravasti
MathuraHathras Etah Farrukhabad Sitapur BalrampurSiddharth Nagar
FirozabadMainpuri Hardoi
Maharajganj
Agra Gonda
Kannauj
Etawah LucknowBarabanki Basti Kushinagar
Auraiya Unnao Faizabad Gorakhpur
Kanpur Dehat Deoria
Rae BareliAmethi Sultanpur
Jalaun AzamgarhMau
Fatehpur Pratapgarh Ballia
Hamirpur Jaunpur
Jhansi Ghazipur
Banda Kaushambi Varanasi
Mahoba
Chitrakoot Allahabad
MirzapurChandauli

Lalitpur
Sonbhadra

Vulnerability Index
Relatively Very High Vulnerable (0.636-0.694)
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.577-0.635)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.519-0.576)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.461-0.518)
110 55 0 110 Kilometers Relatively Very Low Vulnerable (0.403-0.460)

Figure 98: Map showing vulnerability categories of Uttar Pradesh at district level

Figure 99: Drivers of vulnerability (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the indicator acts as a driver of
vulnerability)

110
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.27. Uttarakhand
Uttarakhand has a total geographic area of 53,483 km2 District-level VIs and the related maps are presented
and is in the Central Himalayan Region of the country. in Figure 100 - Figure 101. The highest value of
It is situated between the 28° 43′ to 31° 27′ N latitudes vulnerability was obtained for Garhwal (Pauri Garhwal)
and 77° 34′ to 81° 02′ E longitudes. It is largely a hilly (0.716) and the lowest for Haridwar (0.340). The range
state at the foothills of the Himalayan mountain range. of the VIs was divided into three categories: relatively
The forest cover is 24,303 Km2, 45.44% of the state’s high vulnerability (0.590-0.716) (Pauri Garhwal ,
geographical area (ISFR, 2019). There are 13 districts Tehri Garhwal, Almora, Dehradun, Rudraprayag,
according to the Census of 2011, with a population of Bageshwar), relatively moderate vulnerability (0.465-
10.09 million (density of 189 persons per km2). 0.590) (Champawat, Pithoragarh, Uttarkashi, Chamoli,
Nainital), and relatively low vulnerability (0.340-
Uttarakhand is temperate with seasonal variations 0.465) (Udham Singh Nagar, Haridwar).
in temperature and affected by tropical monsoons.
Since it lies in the Himalayan range, the climate and Major drivers of vulnerability are presented in Figure
vegetation vary greatly with altitude, from glaciers 102. Six indicators emerged as the main drivers of
at the highest elevations to subtropical forests in the vulnerability: low percentage of commercial crops
plains. Ice and bare rocks cover the higher elevations. to net sown area, lack of NRM works per 1000 ha,
The average annual rainfall is 1,500 mm and the less number of households having Kisan Credit Cards
annual temperature varies from 0o C to 43o C. with limit 50,000 or above, low road density, and
high percentage of marginal and small operational
The present district-level agricultural vulnerability holders. Among the 6 selected drivers, percentage of
assessment was conducted for all 13 districts, based commercial crops to net sown area is a driver in 10 of
on 11 indicators. The list of indicators along with the 13 districts. Further, the number of NRM works per
their functional relationships with vulnerability is 1000 ha (MGNREGA) was observed to be accountable
represented in Table 35. Equal weights were assigned for the vulnerability of 9 districts, and NRM works per
to each indicator. 1000 ha and percentage of households having KCC
with limit 50,000 or above were found responsible
for the vulnerability of 8 districts.

Table 35: Indicators used for district-level agriculture assessment for Uttarakhand

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with Vulnerability

Cropping intensity Adaptive Capacity Negative

Proportion of area under commercial crops to net sown area Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage of marginal and small operational land holders Sensitivity Positive

Drainage density Sensitivity Positive

Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative

Annual average days of work per household under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative

Net irrigated area to net sown area Sensitivity Positive

NRM work per 1000 ha Adaptive Capacity Negative

Income diversification Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage of household having Kisan Credit Card with limit 50,000 or above Adaptive Capacity Negative

Livestock to human ratio Adaptive Capacity Negative

111
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 100: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Uttarakhand

Uttarkashi
.
Rudra Prayag
Chamoli
Dehra Dun
Tehri Garhwal

Pithoragarh

Pauri Garhwal Bageshwar

Haridwar

Almora

Naini Tal Champawat

Udham Singh Nagar Vulnerability Index

Relatively High Vulnerable (0.590-0.716)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.465-0.589)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.340-0.464)
40 20 0 40 Kilometers

Figure 101: Map showing agriculture vulnerability categories of Uttarakhand at district level

112
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 102: Drivers of agricultural vulnerability (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the indicator acts as
a driver of vulnerability)

3.28. West Bengal

West Bengal lies in the eastern part of the country 3.33.1. District-level vulnerability
at the latitude of 27°13’15”N to 21°25’24”N and
longitude of 85°48’20”E to 89°53’04”E. The state has assessment of West Bengal
a very peculiar configuration, since its breadth varies
The district-level integrated vulnerability assessment
from 320 km at one point to only 16 km at another.
was carried out based on a set of 12 indicators. These
Its diverse fauna and flora reflect the combined
indicators along with their dimensions and functional
characteristics of the Himalayan, sub-Himalayan, and
relationships are given in Table 36. While the state
Gangetic Plain areas.
has 19 districts altogether, in the present analysis,
West Bengal’s climate is transitional between tropical Kolkata was excluded, because it is a big city with very
wet-dry in the south and humid subtropical in the different characteristics from the other districts.
north. There are four weather types: dry summer,
The highest vulnerability was found for district Malda
monsoon, autumn, and winter. Throughout the state,
(0.69) and the lowest for district Purba Medinipur
there is a pronounced seasonal disparity in rainfall.
(0.384). Figure 103 gives the VIs and corresponding
The average, normal rainfall is 1830 mm in general,
ranking of the districts. The map showing the
and 2486 mm in Sub-Himalayan West Bengal and
categorisation of districts is given in Figure 104.. The
1502 mm in the Gangetic Region.
range shows that all the districts lie within a small
In this report, a district-level integrated vulnerability range of VIs. This means all districts are requiring
assessment for West Bengal and a block-level attention in terms of adaptation. The range of VIs was
agricultural vulnerability assessment for the Darjeeling divided into three equal intervals to identify relatively
Himalayan Region are presented. An integrated high vulnerability (0.59-0.69), moderate vulnerability
vulnerability assessment for the Darjeeling Himalayan (0.49 -0.59), and relatively low vulnerability (0.38-
Region had already been taken up under the previous 0.49). Malda, Jalpaiguri, Nadia, and Uttar Dinajpur
IHCAP project (2019). were found to be highly vulnerable districts.

113
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

The major drivers contributing to the vulnerability of NRM works per 1000 ha (MGNREGA and/or other
of the districts were found to be lack of forest area schemes) (13 districts), and low road density (18
per 1000 rural population (15 districts), less number districts).

Table 36: List of indicators used for the assessment of district-level vulnerability for West Bengal

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with Vulnerability
Per capita income Adaptive Capacity Negative

Female literacy rate Adaptive Capacity Negative

Livestock per 1000 rural households Adaptive Capacity Negative

Forest area (in ha) per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative

Yield variability of food grain Sensitivity Positive

Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative

Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative

Number of NRM works per 1,000 ha (MGNREGS and/or other schemes) Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage household with improved drinking water source Adaptive Capacity Negative

Health infrastructure per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative

Insant Mortality Rate (IMR) Sensitivity Positive

Cases of vector-borne diseases per 1000 population Sensitivity Positive

(dengue & malaria)

Figure 103: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in West Bengal

114
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Darjeeling
Jalpaiguri Alipurduar

Cooch Bihar
.
Uttar Dinajpur
Dakshin Dinajpur
Malda

Murshidabad
Birbhum

Bardhaman Nadia
Puruliya
Bankura
HoogliNorth 24 Parganas
HawrahKolkata
Pashchim Medinipur
South 24 Parganas
Purba Medinipur

Vulnerability Index
Kolkata City
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.588-0.690)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.486-0.587)
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.384-.485)
70 35 0 70 Kilometers

Figure 104: Map showing the categories of vulnerability of the districts in West Bengal

Figure 105: Drivers of vulnerability in districts of West Bengal (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the
indicator acts as a driver of vulnerability)

115
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.33.2. Block-level agricultural Tea cultivation is already practiced at a large scale,

but it seeks better attention in all aspects. The block-
vulnerability of Darjeeling level integrated vulnerability assessment was carried
Himalayan Region in West Bengal out based on a set of 6 indicators. Table 37 gives the
list of indicators used for the assessment. Unequal
The communities living in the Darjeeling Himalayan weights were assigned to all the indicators based on a
Region in West Bengal have a large dependency on literature review and views of the project staff.
climate-sensitive factors as well as the use of ‘not-
so-modern’ technology options and inputs in the VIs range between 0.591 in Mirik and 0.241 in
agricultural sector. An attempt has been made to bring Matigara Block. Darjeeling-Pulbazar, and Jorbunglow-
out the situation of agricultural vulnerability of the Sukhiapokhri Blocks too have been identified as
blocks in this Region by analysing the vulnerability of highly vulnerable blocks. The average value of NVs
people engaged in agricultural practices and weighing across blocks is considered to identify the drivers
the impacts of climate change on agriculture produce of vulnerability. The study reveals that a high yield
and the economy at large there. variability, low crop intensity, and low ratio of livestock
to total population contribute significantly to a high
The net sown area is particularly small in the agricultural vulnerability. High and fluctuating yields
hilly blocks and agriculture is mostly practiced at of foodgrains in the hill blocks as well as in the plains
subsistence level as rain-fed agriculture. There is a reflect the change in climate variables and are highly
good potential, though, for horticulture, herbarium indicative of the adverse impacts of climate change
keeping and growing medicinal plants among other. on agriculture.

Table 37: List of indicators used for the assessment of block-level agricultural vulnerability of the Darjeeling Himalayan Region in
West Bengal

Functional
Adaptive Capacity
Indicators relationship with Weights
/ Sensitivity
vulnerability
Yield variability of food grains Sensitivity Positive 28

Crop intensity Adaptive Capacity Negative 22

Percentage of marginal land- holders to total agricultural population Sensitivity Positive 18

Percentage of population in agricultural and allied activities Sensitivity Positive 15

MGNREGA Adaptive Capacity Negative 11

Livestock to total population Adaptive Capacity Negative 6

Figure 106: Agricultural Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of blocks of Darjeeling Himalayan Region in West Bengal

116
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Kalimpong II
.
Darjeeling Pulbazar
Gorubathan
Rangli Rangliot
Sukiapokhri Kalimpong I

Mirik Kurseong

Matigara

Naxalbari

Phansidewa
Kharibari

Vulnerability Index
Relatively High Vulnerable (0.06-0.08)
Relatively Moderate Vulnerable (0.05-0.06)
10 5 0 10 Kilometers
Relatively Low Vulnerable (0.04-0.05)

Figure 107: Map showing the categories of agricultural vulnerability of the blocks of the Darjeeling Himalayan
Region in West Bengal

Figure 108: Drivers of agricultural vulnerability of blocks of the Darjeeling Himalayan Region in West Bengal (length of the bar
representing the average normalized value of the corresponding indicator)

117
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

3.29. Pondicherry
Pondicherry is one of the UTs of India, situated on the District-level VIs and the related maps are presented
south-east coast. It comprises of 4 districts that are in Figure 109 -Figure 110. Districts were ranked
geographically disjoint. The climate of Pondicherry is from high to low vulnerability. The highest value of
classified as tropical wet and dry. The summer lasts vulnerability was obtained for Mahe (0.590), followed
from April to early June when maximum temperatures by Puducherry (0.570), and Yanam (0.470), while the
may reach 41°C. The average maximum temperature lowest value was for Karaikal (0.450). Major drivers
is 36°C. Minimum temperatures are in the order of of vulnerability are presented in Figure 111. Eight
28o-32°C. Summer is followed by a period of high indicators emerged as the main drivers of vulnerability:
humidity and occasional thundershowers from June total number of livestock per 1000 population,
till September. The annual average rainfall is 1,355 tourist footfall per 1000 population (3), forest area
mm. Winters are very warm, with highs of 30°C and (in ha) per 1000 rural population (2), variability in
lows often dipping to around 18o-20°C. food grain crop yield (3 years: 2016-2017 to 2018-
2019) (2), number of banks per 1000 population (2),
The present district-level vulnerability assessment average person days per household employed under
was conducted for the 4 districts of Pondicherry MGNREGA over the last 5 years (2015-2016 – to
based on 16 indicators. The list of indicators along 2019-2020) (2), cases of vector-borne diseases per
with their functional relationships with vulnerability is 1000 population ( dengue & malaria) (2), and cases
represented in Table 38. Equal weights were assigned of water- borne diseases per 1000 population (2).
to each indicator.
Table 38: Indicators used for district-level vulnerability assessment for Pondicherry

Adaptive Capacity / Functional relationship

Indicators
Sensitivity with vulnerability
Percentage BPL households (as per BPL card) Sensitivity Positive

Tourist footfall per 1000 population Sensitivity Positive

Total number of livestock per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage of marginal and small farmers (land <5 acre) Sensitivity Positive

Women’s participation in labour force Adaptive Capacity Negative

Forest area (in ha) per 1000 rural population Adaptive Capacity Negative

Percentage net area irrigated to net sown area Adaptive Capacity Negative

Yield variability of food grain Sensitivity Positive

State of groundwater development (draft of groundwater in relation to

Sensitivity Positive
availability)

Road density Adaptive Capacity Negative

Number of banks per 1000 population Adaptive Capacity Negative

Average person days per household employed under MGNREGA over last 5
Adaptive Capacity Negative
years

Percentage of households electrified Adaptive Capacity Negative

Cases of Vector-borne diseases per 1000 population Sensitivity Positive

Cases of Water-borne diseases per 1000 of population Sensitivity Positive

Number of doctors, specialists, health assistants & health workers per 1000
Adaptive Capacity Negative
population

118
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Figure 109: Vulnerability Indices (VIs) and ranking of districts in Pondicherry

Figure 111: Drivers of vulnerability (length of the bar representing the number of districts in which the indicator acts as a driver of
vulnerability)

119
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

. .

Mahe

Puducherry

Mahe (0.587)
Puducherry (0.570)

3 1.5 0 3 Kilometers 2.5 1.25 0 2.5 Kilometers

. .

Karaikal

Yanam

Yanam (0.468)

Karaikal (0.447)
1.5 0.75 0 1.5 Kilometers 2.5 1.25 0 2.5 Kilometers

Figure 110: Map showing Vulnerability Ranking of Pondicherry at District level

120
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Utility
of the report
and way forward

121
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Utility of the report and way forward

Assessing vulnerability to climate change is important •• A vulnerability assessment can assist in ranking
as it helps to understand climate risks and provides and identification of the most vulnerable districts
information, on the location specific measures and states and help states prioritise adaptation
to be taken to adapt to climate change. Hence, a planning and investments. It will provide a basis
vulnerability assessment is the first step in adaptation to identify the entry-point of intervention for
planning. This project was initiated to inform the adaptation planning and investment at the
policymakers of India on the vulnerability profiles district-level through the identification of priority
of different states using a common assessment sectors and major drivers of vulnerability.
framework. The present assessment has used the •• It is critical for developing adaptation projects for
IPCC 2014 ‘Risk and Vulnerability Framework’ as the the Green Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund, and
base of such a common framework, which is a clear funds from multilateral and bilateral agencies.
improvement over the IPCC-2007 framework. The
purpose is to measure the comparable degrees of •• The vulnerability assessments carried out by
vulnerability for all Indian states for prioritization of the states (Part III of the report) could become
the states for climate change adaptation planning a chapter in their revised State Action Plan on
and investment. The analysis also helps the states in Climate Change, as per the outline provided by
understanding the major drivers of vulnerability and the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
target the adaptation actions accordingly. Change.
•• It will also facilitate Nationally Determined
It needs to be mentioned that vulnerability is a relative Contributions, which aims to adapt better to
measure and shows the position of one spatial unit climate change by enhancing investments in
with respect to the other relatively low vulnerability development programmes in sectors vulnerable
doesn’t necessarily imply that the spatial unit has to climate change, particularly agriculture, water
low vulnerability in an absolute sense. Based on the resources, health sector and regions such as
VIs derived, the report concludes that all states in Himalayan region, coastal regions, etc. It may also
India are vulnerable to climate risks. However, the aid to plan disaster management.
ranking of states using a VI indicates the relative
vulnerability of the states and such an assessment •• A vulnerability assessment contributes to
helps policymakers and funding agencies to prioritize reporting under the Paris Agreement, Article-9
states for adaptation interventions. through the assessment of climate change
impacts and vulnerability; the formulation and
Also, with differentiation in the relative vulnerability implementation of a National Adaptation Plan,
of districts in India, the corresponding response by monitoring and evaluation of adaptation plans,
various stakeholders should ideally be differentiated policies and programmes; and the development
as well. In more vulnerable districts the adaptation and implementation of resilience of socio-
action should focus on reducing vulnerability economic and ecological systems.
while in districts that are relatively less vulnerable A vulnerability assessment is a first step, considering
the adaptation actions should be geared towards only current climate risks. A future direction of
managing climate-induced hazards and exposure research and implementation is towards developing a
to these hazards. Such a targeted approach would climate risk map based on a hazard, vulnerability, and
help in enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of exposure framework. There is a need for a climate-
adaptation actions. change risk index development and a risk ranking of
This assessment would allow for better-suited climate districts and states, based on a risk framework under
adaptation actions by factoring in differentiating climate change, where:
features of districts and assist in the following: Risk = f (Hazard, Exposure, Vulnerability).

122
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

The future direction of work involves: vulnerability assessment should ideally be carried out
also at a block/village level. Therefore, availability of
•• Development of a common framework, data is important in a similar resolution. Moreover,
methodology, and guidelines for an overall risk given the current pandemic, the effort of the states
assessment. to collect data from their line departments had to
•• Development of a Risk Index for states. All be stalled. Also, for various important demographic
State Climate Change Centres funded by the indicators, including proportion of BPL population
Department of Science and Technology could and women’s participation in the workforce, the
undertake this assessment. It requires building assessment had to rely on data obtained from
capacity for risk assessment and adaptation Census, 2011. Overall, it shows the importance of
planning. generation of data on important indicators in regular
A vulnerability assessment is inherently a data- and relatively shorter intervals. Generation of data
intensive process and hence non-availability of the for risk assessment is also important. There is need
latest data remained a major challenge, as reported of a strategy for data generation for a climate-change
by multiple states. Lack of availability of data, in many risk and vulnerability assessment and adaptation
cases, had both spatial as well as temporal dimension. planning.
Followed by the state and district-level analysis, the

123
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

References
•• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change •• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis (IPCC). (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis
Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the. Geneva, III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the. Geneva,
Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Retrieved August 15, 2020. Change. Retrieved August 15, 2020
•• Germanwatch. (2019). Global Climate Risk •• Indian Himalayas Climate Adaptation Pogramme
Index - 2020: Who Suffers Most from Extreme (IHCAP). (2018). Reports/Publications. Retrieved
Weather Events? Weather-Related Loss Events from Indian Himalayan climate adaptation
in 2018 and 1999 to 2018. Briefing Paper. Berlin: program: http://ihcap.in/reports
Germanwatch. https://www.germanwatch.org/ •• O’Brien, G., O’keefe, P., Meena, H., Rose, J., &
en/17307.Retrieved August 22, 2020. Wilson, L. (2008). Climate adaptation from a
•• O’Brien, G., O’keefe, P., Meena, H., Rose, J., & poverty perspective. Climate Policy, 194-201.
Wilson, L. (2008). Climate adaptation from a •• Marshall, N. A. (2011). Assessing Resource
poverty perspective. Climate Policy, 194-201. Dependency on the Rangelands as a measure of
•• O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S. H., Nygaard, L., & climate sensitivity. Society & Natural Resources,
Schjolden, A. (2007, January). Why different 24(10), 1105-1115.
interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate •• Indian Himalayas Climate Adaptation Programme
change discourses. Climate Policy, 7(1), 73.88. (IHCAP). (2019). Climate vulnerability assessment
DOI:10.3763/cpol.2007.0706. for the Indian Himalayan region using a common
•• Kelly, P. M., & Adger, W. N. (2000, December). framework. New Delhi: Government of India
Theory and Practice in Assessing Vulnerability and the Swiss Agency for development and
to Climate Change and Facilitating cooperation.
Adaptation. Climate Change, 47(4), 325-352. •• Sathyan, A.R., Funk, C., Aenis, T., & Breuer, L. (2018).
DOI:10.1023/A:1005627828199 Climate Vulnerability in Rainfed Farming: Analysis
•• Sharma, J., Murthy, I. K., Esteves, T., Negi, P., from Indian watershed. Sustainability, 10(9).
Sushma, S., Dasgupta, S., Barua, A., Bala, G., •• Davis, K. F., Chhatre, A., Rao, N. D., Singh,
Ravindranath, N.H. (2018). Climate Vulnerability D., & Defries, R. (2019). Sensitivity of grain
and Risk Assessment: Framework, Methods and yields to historical climate variability in India.
Guidelines for the Indian Himaflayan Region. Environmental Research Letters.
Report published under Indian Himalayan
Climate Adaptation Programme, Swiss Agency •• Swain, M. (2014). Crop Insurance for Adaptation
for Development and Cooperation and National to Climate Change in India (Working Paper). Asia
Mission of Sustainable Himalayan Ecosystem, Research Centre, London School of Economics &
Department of Science and Technology, Political Science.
Government of India. http://ihcap.in/reports •• Rani, C. R., Vanaja, M., & Bali, S. K. (2011).
•• Barua, A., Dasgupta, S., Ravindranath, N.H. (2019). Climate change and rainfed agriculture: Rural
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for the Indian development perspectives. Journal of rural
Himalayan Region Using a Common Framework. development, 30(4), 411-419.
Report published under Indian Himalayan •• Indian Himalayas Climate Adaptation Programme
Climate Adaptation Programme, Swiss Agency (IHCAP). (2019). Climate vulnerability assessment
for Development and Cooperation and National for the Indian Himalayan region using a common
Mission of Sustainable Himalayan Ecosystem, framework. New Delhi: Government of India
Department of Science and Technology, and the Swiss Agency for development and
Government of India. http://ihcap.in/reports cooperation

124
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

•• Human Development Report. (2019). Beyond Assessment of Indian Agriculture to Climate

income, beyond averages, beyond today: Change. Hyderabad: Central Research Institute
Inequalities in human development in the 21st for Dryland Agriculture.
century. New York: United Nations Development •• Aryal, J. P., Sapkota, T. B., Khurana, R., Chhetri, A.
Programme. K., Rahut, D. B., & Jat, M. L. (2020). Climate change
•• Adam, H. N. (2014). Mainstreaming adaptation and agriculture in South Asia: adaptation options
in India – the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural in smallholder production systems. Environment,
Employment Guarantee Act and climate change. Development and Sustainability, 22, 5045–5075.
Climate and Development, 7(2), 142-152. •• Forest Survey of India. (2019). India state of forest
•• Ebinger, J. O., & Vandycke, N. (2015). Moving report 2019. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment,
toward climate-resilient transport: the World forest and climate change, Government of India.
Bank’s experience from building adaptation into Retrieved May 25, 2020
programs. Wahington DC: World Bank •• Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
•• Indian Himalayas Climate Adaptation Programme (2016). State of Indian Agriculture: 2015-16.
(IHCAP). (2019). Climate vulnerability assessment Retrieved from Open government Data platform
for the Indian Himalayan region using a common India
framework. New Delhi: Government of India •• Department of land resource & National remote
and the Swiss Agency for development and sensing centre. (2019). Wetlands atlas of India.
cooperation. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s
•• Dhiman, R. C., Pahwa, S., Dhillon, G. P., & Dash, Welfare, Government of India.
A. P. (2010). Climate change and the threat of •• Reserve Bank of India (RBI). (2018). Handbook of
vector-borne diseases in India: Are we prepared? statistics on Indian Economy 2018-19. New Delhi:
Parasitology Research, 106(4), 763–773. RBI, Government of India. Retrieved from https://
•• Rastogi, A. (2019, March 20). Health and climate www.rbi.org.in/scripts/AnnualPublications.
change. Retrieved from National Health Profile: aspx?head=Handbook%20of%20Statistics%20
https://www.nhp.gov.in/health-and-climate- on%20Indian%20Economy
change_pg •• Census. (2011). Census of India. New Delhi:
•• NDMA, National Disaster Management Authority Government of India. Retrieved April 20, 2020
(NDMA). (2016). Vulnerability profile of India. •• Unique Identification Authority of India Estimates
Retrieved from National Disaster Management (UIDAI). (2020). Government of India. Retrieved
Authority, Government of India: https://ndma. March 29, 2020, from https://uidai.gov.in/
gov.in/en/vulnerability-profile.html images/state-wise-aadhaar-saturation.pdf, http://
•• Reserve Bank of India (RBI). (2018). Handbook of statisticstimes.com/demographics/india/indian-
statistics on Indian Economy 2018-19. New Delhi: states-population.php
RBI, Government of India. Retrieved from https:// •• Reserve Bank of India (RBI). (2018). Handbook of
www.rbi.org.in/scripts/AnnualPublications. statistics on Indian Economy 2018-19. New Delhi:
aspx?head=Handbook%20of%20Statistics%20 RBI, Government of India. Retrieved from https://
on%20Indian%20Economy www.rbi.org.in/scripts/AnnualPublications.
•• Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture aspx?head=Handbook%20of%20Statistics%20
(CRIDA). (2019). Risk and Vulnerability on%20Indian%20Economy

125
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Appendix
Appendix_Table 1: State-level land use pattern in India

Geographical The area under Area under The area under % Area irrigated (2014-
States area (km2) forest (km2) agriculture wasteland (km2)
15)
(2019) (2019) (‘000 ha) (2014-15) (2015-16)
Andhra Pradesh 162970 29137 9047 23982 46.94

Arunachal Pradesh 83743 66688 423 13906 24.89

Assam 78438 28327 3364 9003 10.47

Bihar 94163 7306 6579 7685 56.59
Chhattisgarh 135192 55611 5558 10875 31.32
Goa 3702 2237 197 516 30.23
Gujarat 196244 14857 12661 21740 41.09
Haryana 44212 1602 3656 1659 84.44

Himachal Pradesh 55673 15434 812 22832 20.55

Erstwhile Jammu &

222236 23612 1075 175697 43.67
Kashmir
Jharkhand 79716 23611 4343 11767 14.95
Karnataka 191791 38575 12827 13230 35.73
Kerala 38852 21144 2266 2288 20.26
Madhya Pradesh 308252 77482 17252 39537 62.43
Maharashtra 307713 50778 21099 36075 18.70
Manipur 22327 16847 390 5652 18.02
Meghalaya 22429 17119 1056 4136 28.32
Mizoram 21081 18006 367 4301 11.03
Nagaland 16579 12486 694 5064 25.26
Orissa 155707 51619 6784 18422 28.14
Punjab 50362 1849 4285 462 99.98
Rajasthan 342239 16630 25511 78851 44.99
Sikkim 7096 3342 97 3295 15.58
Tamil Nadu 130060 26364 8112 8222 56.57
Telangana 112077 20582 6877 14241 39.43
Tripura 10486 7726 272 921 30.98
Uttar Pradesh 240928 14806 18939 12726 86.69
Uttarakhand 53483 24303 1549 8537 47.14
West Bengal 88752 16902 5655 1655 59.22

Source: Geographical Area Km2 (1), Area Under forest Km2 (1), Area under agriculture 000’s of a hectare (2), Area under wetlands Km2
(3), % area irrigated (4)

126
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Appendix_Table 2: Demographic and socio-economic features of the states in India

Population GSDP in 2014-15 at

density Literacy rate a constant price, the % of BPL Infant Mortality Rate
States
(person/ Km) (2011) base year 2011-12 Households (2011) (2011)
(2019) (Billion INR)

Andhra Pradesh 308 67.02 4.42 9.20 34

Arunachal Pradesh 17 65.39 0.14 34.67 36

Assam 398 72.19 1.67 31.98 44

Bihar 1,106 61.80 3.05 33.74 38

Chhattisgarh 189 70.28 1.96 39.93 39

Goa 394 88.70 0.35 5.09 8

Gujarat 308 78.03 7.92 16.63 30

Haryana 573 75.55 3.67 11.16 33

Himachal Pradesh 123 82.80 0.89 8.06 25

Erstwhile Jammu and

124 67.16 0.85 10.35 24
Kashmir

Jharkhand 414 66.41 1.86 36.96 29

Karnataka 319 75.37 7.60 20.91 24

Kerala 860 94.00 4.32 7.05 10

Madhya Pradesh 236 69.32 3.84 31.65 47

Maharashtra 365 82.34 15.25 17.19 19

Manipur 128 76.90 0.15 36.89 11

Meghalaya 132 74.43 0.21 11.87 39

Mizoram 52 91.33 0.10 20.40 27

Nagaland 119 79.60 0.14 18.88 12

Orissa 270 72.89 2.75 32.59 44

Punjab 551 75.84 3.13 8.26 21

Rajasthan 201 66.11 5.12 14.71 41

Sikkim 86 81.42 0.13 8.19 16

Tamil Nadu 555 80.09 9.01 11.28 17

Telangana 314 66.46 4.24 25.82 31

Tripura 350 87.22 0.25 14.05 24

Uttar Pradesh 829 67.68 8.54 29.43 43

Uttarakhand 189 78.82 1.41 11.26 38

West Bengal 1,028 76.26 3.98 19.98 25

Source: Literacy rate, % BPL household and IMR (5), Population Density -calculated based on population data from (6), GSDP (4)

127
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Appendix_Table 3: Database for 14 indicators used in the all-India state-level assessment

Proportion of output from perennial trees to total

Proportion of Income from Natural Resources to

value of agricultural and allied output (2015-16)

employed under MNAREGA (2014-15 - 2015-16)

Coefficient of variation/ Yield variability of food
% of marginal and small operational holding

Vector Borne Diseases per 1,000 population

Water Borne Diseases per 1,000 population

proportion of rainfed agriculture (2014-15)

(sq. KM) per 1,000 rural population (2019)

Poverty rate (% BPL population) (2011)

and RWBCIS crop insurance (2017 -18)

(KM/KM2) (2016-17+2018-19)2019
Average person day per household
Proportion of area under PMFBY

Density of health care workers

grains (2004-2005 - 2014-15)

(per lakh population) (2016)

GSDP (2014-15/2015-16)

Work participation rate

Road Rail Density

(Women) (2011)
Forest area
(2015-16)

(2018-19)

(2018-19)
States

Andhra Pradesh 9.2 0.31 0.11 0.89 0.08 0.35 0.53 0.77 36.16 47 1.11 212.7 0.20 25.13
Arunachal Pradesh 34.67 0.44 0.19 0.45 0.18 0.00 0.75 55.88 35.44 14 0.51 270.3 0.73 16.42
Assam 31.98 0.26 0.09 0.86 0.15 0.02 0.90 0.94 22.46 22 4.31 148.5 0.17 7.16
Bihar 33.74 0.27 0.08 0.97 0.20 0.40 0.43 0.07 19.07 34 2.23 110.2 0.06 3.31
Chhattisgarh 39.93 0.21 0.06 0.83 0.16 0.48 0.69 2.50 39.7 32 0.72 165.3 2.75 6.90
Goa 5.09 0.07 0.15 0.91 0.08 0.00 0.70 3.78 21.92 23 6.09 446.8 0.76 15.39
Gujarat 16.63 0.19 0.06 0.68 0.13 0.26 0.59 0.40 23.38 35 0.92 174.6 0.61 12.12
Haryana 11.16 0.22 0.01 0.69 0.08 0.55 0.16 0.09 17.79 28 1.93 204.8 0.18 9.90
Himachal Pradesh 8.06 0.22 0.21 0.89 0.10 0.20 0.79 2.32 44.82 42 1.16 259.2 0.65 44.15
Erstwhile Jammu and
10.35 0.22 0.21 0.95 0.10 0.20 0.56 2.37 19.11 36 0.29 220.5 0.03 38.48
Kashmir
Jharkhand 36.96 0.16 0.05 0.84 0.18 0.22 0.85 0.82 29.1 41 0.99 153.8 1.56 3.13
Karnataka 20.91 0.12 0.11 0.80 0.09 0.18 0.64 0.94 31.87 40 1.88 206.2 0.46 15.71
Kerala 7.05 0.12 0.16 0.99 0.07 0.02 0.80 1.14 18.23 43 6.30 394 0.14 15.59
Madhya Pradesh 31.65 0.40 0.05 0.76 0.18 0.82 0.38 1.28 32.64 42 1.11 163 0.35 7.05
Maharashtra 17.35 0.11 0.10 0.81 0.11 0.34 0.81 0.76 31.06 53 2.03 292 0.26 5.72
Manipur 36.89 0.28 0.15 0.83 0.12 0.05 0.82 7.81 38.56 22 1.24 258.5 0.12 10.67
Meghalaya 11.87 0.19 0.15 0.79 0.14 0.01 0.72 6.45 32.67 48 1.02 153 2.05 39.32
Mizoram 20.4 0.42 0.08 0.81 0.36 0.00 0.89 30.76 36.16 22 0.52 588.2 3.65 14.78
Nagaland 18.88 0.34 0.13 0.19 0.15 0.00 0.75 7.91 44.74 22 2.19 272.7 0.23 10.58
Orissa 32.59 0.19 0.08 0.93 0.10 0.32 0.72 1.35 27.16 36 1.95 199.2 1.60 14.25
Punjab 8.26 0.31 0.03 0.33 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.10 13.91 22 2.77 271.3 0.55 7.59
Rajasthan 14.71 0.36 0.01 0.62 0.17 0.54 0.55 0.28 35.12 46 0.78 143.7 0.17 12.87
Sikkim 8.19 0.09 0.04 0.85 0.11 0.00 0.84 6.56 39.57 43 1.60 465.6 1.04 61.12
Tamil Nadu 11.28 0.14 0.11 0.93 0.20 0.26 0.43 0.66 31.8 47 2.01 222.7 0.13 5.40
Telangana 9.2 0.15 0.08 0.88 0.08 0.22 0.61 0.87 36.16 43 1.13 212.7 0.22 13.86
Tripura 14.05 0.29 0.12 0.96 0.07 0.01 0.69 2.54 23.57 88 4.09 180.6 3.46 20.24
Uttar Pradesh 29.43 0.31 0.06 0.93 0.08 0.28 0.13 0.08 16.75 34 1.78 134.6 0.31 8.88
Uttarakhand 11.26 0.12 0.11 0.92 0.08 0.17 0.53 3.13 26.68 32 1.30 216.3 0.10 11.13
West Bengal 19.98 0.38 0.06 0.96 0.10 0.36 0.41 0.25 18.08 33 3.63 243.7 0.29 25.37
STDEV 10.84 0.10 0.05 0.19 0.06 0.21 0.23 11.19 8.70 13.72 1.51 106.9 0.99 13.28
Mean 19.37 0.24 0.10 0.80 0.13 0.22 0.61 4.92 29.09 36.90 1.99 240.8 0.79 16.63
COV 56% 44% 54% 23% 46% 95% 37% 227% 30% 37% 76% 44% 125% 80%

128
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Appendix_Table 4: Data source of the indicators used in the all-India state-level assessment

Indicators Data Source

(Reserve Bank of India (RBI), 2011-12), https://m.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?id=18810
% BPL population
(Census 2011)

Income share from

(NITI Ayog, 2012), https://niti.gov.in/content/2011-12-series (NITI Aayog)
natural resources*

(Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI), 2018), http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/

Share of horticulture in
files/publication_reports/Final1Brochure_30july2018.pdf (State-wise and item-wise estimates of the value
agriculture
of output from agriculture and allied sectors (2011-12 to 2015-16), CSO, MoSPI)
(Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 2018) http://agricoop.gov.in/sites/default/files/
Marginal and small
agristatglance2018.pdf (Table 15.2: Area of Operational Holding by size group, 2015-16 (P), Agricultural
landholdings
Statistics at a Glance 2018)
(Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 2018), http://agricoop.gov.in/sites/default/files/
Yield variability of food
agristatglance2018.pdf (Table 4.1.4: Total Foodgrains: State-wise yield, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance
grains*
2018)
(Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 2018-19)http://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/AR_2018-
Area covered under 19_Final_for_Print.pdf (Table 9.2.2: Restructured Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (RWBCIS),
crop insurance* Coverage under PMFBY & RWBCIS, Annual Report 2018-19, Department of Agriculture, Corporation and
Farmers Welfare)
The area under rainfed (Reserve Bank of India (RBI), 2011-12)https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?id=18844
agriculture (Reserve Bank of India)
(20th Livestock Census, 2019) http://dadf.gov.in/sites/default/filess/20th%20Livestock%20
Livestock to human
census-2019%20All%20India%20Report.pdf (20th Livestock Census 2019); Population: Population Data:
ratio
https://uidai.gov.in/images/state-wise-aadhaar-saturation.pdf
(Unique Identification Authority of India Estimates (UIDAI), 2020)Population Data: https://uidai.
Forest area per 1,000 gov.in/images/state-wise-aadhaar-saturation.pdf (UIDAI, Govt. of India); % Rural Population: http://
rural population statisticstimes.com/demographics/population-of-indian-states.php (UIDAI, Govt. of India); (Forest Survey
of India, 2019), http://fsi.nic.in/isfr19/vol1/chapter2.pdf (Forest Statistics of India, 2019)
Women participation (Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation (MoSPI), 2017) http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/
in labour force reports_and_publication/statistical_publication/social_statistics/WM17Chapter4.pdf (Census, 2011)
(Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA), 2015-16), https://
MGNREGA*
visualize.data.gov.in/?inst=51a18f1b-c3a8-45fb-82fb-cd884d1c2650&vid=16861# (MGNREGA Website)
(Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Transport Research Wing, 2016-17), https://morth.gov.in/sites/
default/files/Basic%20_Road_Statics_of_India.pdf
Road + rail density
(Ministry of Railways, 2018-19), http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/
stat_econ/Year_Book/Year%20Book%202018-19-English.pdf;
Density of Health care
(World Health Organization, 2016), https://www.who.int/hrh/resources/16058health_workforce_India.pdf
Workers
(Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, 2019), 3.1.1 State/UT wise Cases and Deaths due to Malaria, 2014
- 2018 (P) (ICD - 10 Code B50 - B54), 3.1.5 State/UT wise Cases and Deaths Due to Dengue in India, 2014
- 2018(P); (ICD - 10 Code A90 - A91), 3.1.2 State/UT wise Clinically Suspected Chikungunya Cases in India,
Vector-borne diseases 2014 - 2018 (P) (ICD-10 Code A92.0), 3.1.3 State/UT wise Cases and Deaths Due to Kala-azar in India,
(VBD) 2014 - 2018(P); (ICD - 10 Code B55.0), 3.1.4 (A) State/UT wise Cases and Deaths Due to Acute Encephalitis
Syndrome, 2014 - 2018 (P); ICD - 10 Code A83.0, State/UT wise Cases and Deaths Due to Japanese
Encephalitis, 2014 - 2018 (P) ICD - 10 Code A83, National health profile, 2019, 14th edition, https://www.
cbhidghs.nic.in/showfile.php?lid=1147
(Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, 2019), State/UT wise Cases and Deaths due to Acute Diarrhoeal
Water-borne diseases Diseases in India, 2017; ICD – 10 Code A09, ICD – 10 Code B15-B19, 3.1.8(A) State/UT wise Cases and
(WBD) Deaths due to Enteric Fever (Typhoid) in India, 2017 ICD – 10 Code A01, 3.1.6(B) State/UT wise Cases and
Deaths due to Cholera in India, 2018 (P) ICD – 10 Code A00National health profile, 2019, 14th edition;

129
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Appendix_Table 5: Data-source for indicators used in the all-India district-level vulnerability assessment

Indicators Data Source

% of households
having monthly income
of highest earning
(Socio Economic and Caste Census, 2011) https://secc.gov.in/welcome
household members in a
rural area in a rural area
less than Rs. 5,000/-
1. (20th Livestock Census, 2019), http://www.dahd.nic.in/about-us/divisions/statistics; Total Sheep
http://dadf.gov.in/sites/default/filess/District-wise%20Sheep%20Population_0.pdf; Total cattle
http://dadf.gov.in/sites/default/filess/District-wise%20cattle%20population%202019_0.pdf; Total
Pig http://dadf.gov.in/sites/default/filess/District-wise%20Pig%20Population_0.pdf ; Total Goat
http://dadf.gov.in/sites/default/filess/District-wise%20Goat%20Population_0.pdf ; Total Buffalo
Livestock to human ratio
http://dadf.gov.in/sites/default/filess/District-wise%20buffalo%20population%202019_0.pdf

2. For equivalent values- (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 2011)http://www.

mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/Manual%20on%20Animal%20Husbandry%20
Statistics.pdf
Marginal and small (Agriculture Census Division, 2019) District Tables - Input Survey Data 2011 http://inputsurvey.dacnet.
landholders nic.in/districttables.aspx
Women participation in (Census, 2011); PCA tables Census 2011, Total Worker Population Female http://censusindia.gov.in/pca/
the workforce pca.aspx
Forest area per 100 rural (Forest Survey of India, 2019); India state of forest report - ISFR 2019; https://fsi.nic.in/isfr-volume-
population ii?pgID=isfr-volume-ii
1. (Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, 2015-16) Web-Based Land Use
Statistics Information System https://aps.dac.gov.in/LUS/Public/Reports.aspx, 2015-16;
2. (Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, 2016)http://agricoop.nic.in/
agriculturecontingency/west-bengal?page=1, 2016;
3. (Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, 2019) http://agricoop.nic.in/
agriculturecontingency/Mizoram, 2019 ;
4. (Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, 2019)http://www.agrimanipur.gov.in/
The area under rainfed district-wise-area-production/http://agricoop.nic.in/agriculturecontingency/Maharashtra, 2019 ;
agriculture
5. (Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, 2016) http://agricoop.nic.in/
agriculturecontingency/Manipur,
6. (Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, 2019), http://agricoop.nic.in/
agriculturecontingency/Gujarat, 2019;
7. (Department of Agriculture, 2016-17)http://www.agrimanipur.gov.in/district-wise-area-production/;
8. (Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, 2016)http://agricoop.nic.in/
agriculturecontingency/Sikkim, 2016
% Net Sown area under (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare, 2018) http://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/
horticulture Horticulture%20Statistics%20at%20a%20Glance-2018.pdf
1. (Crop Production Statistics Information System, 2006-2018), https://aps.dac.gov.in/APY/Public_
Report1.aspx ;
Yield variability of food
grains 2. (Abraham, 2019); (Kerala State Planning Board, 2006-2018); (Kerala State Planning Board, 2017); 3.
(Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, 2013-14); https://www.rkvy.nic.in/static/SAP/OR/
For%20this%20Period(2017-18%20to%202019-20)/SAP_of_Orissa_Report_Final.pdf
Road density (Census, 2011), district census handbook - town amenities; Statistical data handbook
Area covered under crop
(Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY, WBCIS), 2019), https://pmfby.gov.in/ceo/dashboard
insurance
(Health Management Information System, 2020);
Health infrastructure per https://nrhm-mis.nic.in/SitePages/HMIS-Publications.
thousand population aspx?RootFolder=%2FPubStatistical%5FPublications%2FRural%20Health%20 Statistics&FolderCTID=0x0
12000AC878C9A74E6DC46A4B9220C1AAC27300098F49E13CE4ED442AB009F0A97E0CFFA&View={963
874F4-C1DD-4335-9EEB-C1FC961508FB} 2014 - 2018 (P)
(District Level Key Findings From NFHS-4, 2015-16), http://rchiips.org/NFHS/districtfactsheet_NFHS-
Female literacy rate
2015-16
% HH with the improved (District Level Key Findings From NFHS-4, 2015-16)http://rchiips.org/NFHS/districtfactsheet_NFHS-4.
drinking water source shtml , 2015-16

130
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Appendix_Table 6: List of districts, their vulnerability indices and ranks in the all-India assessment 5

District Considered States VI Ranking District Considered States VI Ranking

Karimganj Assam 0.753 1 Khagaria Bihar 0.660 44
Goalpara Assam 0.752 2 Gopalganj Bihar 0.659 45
Dhubri Assam 0.734 3 Madhubani Bihar 0.659 46
Darrang Assam 0.732 4 Udalguri Assam 0.659 47
Katihar Bihar 0.725 5 Balrampur Uttar Pradesh 0.659 48
Sonitpur Assam 0.720 6 Giridih Jharkhand 0.657 49
Araria Bihar 0.707 7 Nandurbar Maharashtra 0.656 50
Kishanganj Bihar 0.707 8 Buxar Bihar 0.656 51
Golaghat Assam 0.707 9 Vaishali Bihar 0.655 52
Cachar Assam 0.703 10 Supaul Bihar 0.655 53
Barpeta Assam 0.703 11 Buldhana Maharashtra 0.655 54
Purnia Bihar 0.701 12 Koraput Orissa 0.654 55
Jamui Bihar 0.700 13 Nalbari Assam 0.654 56
Nuapada Orissa 0.699 14 Paschim Medinipur West Bengal 0.653 57
Kokrajhar Assam 0.699 15 Shravasti Uttar Pradesh 0.653 58
Sahebganj Jharkhand 0.696 16 Dhemaji Assam 0.651 59
Sheohar Bihar 0.694 17 Jajpur Orissa 0.651 60
Tinsukia Assam 0.693 18 Chatra Jharkhand 0.651 61
Baksa Assam 0.690 19 Dakshin Dinajpur West Bengal 0.649 62
Perambalur Tamil Nadu 0.688 20 Arwal Bihar 0.648 63
Morigaon Assam 0.688 21 Gaya Bihar 0.647 64
Ariyalur Tamil Nadu 0.686 22 Kamrup
Assam 0.647 65
Dibrugarh Assam 0.685 23 Metropolitan
Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh 0.645 66
Sivasagar Assam 0.685 24
Palamu Jharkhand 0.645 67
Hailakandi Assam 0.684 25
Hazaribagh Jharkhand 0.644 68
Nagaon Assam 0.683 26
Washim Maharashtra 0.644 69
Cooch Bihar West Bengal 0.681 27
Lawngtlai Mizoram 0.644 70
Madhepura Bihar 0.680 28
Muzaffarpur Bihar 0.643 71
Jalpaiguri West Bengal 0.679 29
Mandla Madhya Pradesh 0.643 72
Bahraich Uttar Pradesh 0.676 30
Pakur Jharkhand 0.643 73
Puruliya West Bengal 0.676 31
Nabarangpur Orissa 0.643 74
Lakhimpur Assam 0.673 32
Purba champaran Godda Jharkhand 0.642 75
Bihar 0.673 33
(East) Sonbhadra Uttar Pradesh 0.640 76
Lakhisarai Bihar 0.672 34 Balangir Orissa 0.640 77
Siwan Bihar 0.669 35 Simdega Jharkhand 0.640 78
Sitamarhi Bihar 0.668 36 Bareilly Uttar Pradesh 0.639 79
Ramban Erstwhile J&K 0.665 37 Lohardaga Jharkhand 0.639 80
Bishnupur Manipur 0.665 38 Nawada Bihar 0.639 81
Mewat (Nuh) Haryana 0.663 39 Saraikela-kharswana Jharkhand 0.638 82
Ramanathapuram Tamil Nadu 0.663 40 Shahdol Madhya Pradesh 0.637 83
Jorhat Assam 0.663 41 Pilibhit Uttar Pradesh 0.637 84
Chirang Assam 0.662 42 Pulwama Erstwhile J&K 0.637 85
Nayagarh Orissa 0.661 43 Rewa Madhya Pradesh 0.636 86

5 It is better not to consider the VIs obtained for 7 major cities (going by 2014 data), namely, Mumbai Urban, Chennai, Ahmedabad (including Bhavnagar),
Bengaluru Urban, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Pune. Delhi, as a Union Territory, has not been considered in the present study. These cities have very
different characteristics in terms of income, infrastructure, population density, etc. and may not be considered together with the rest of the districts.

131
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

District Considered States VI Ranking District Considered States VI Ranking

Mahoba Uttar Pradesh 0.636 87 Imphal west Manipur 0.619 131
Kupwara Erstwhile J&K 0.635 88 Sant Ravidas Nagar
Uttar Pradesh 0.619 132
(bhadohi)
Hingoli Maharashtra 0.635 89
Sant kabir nagar Uttar Pradesh 0.619 133
Khunti Jharkhand 0.634 90
Banka Bihar 0.619 134
Medak Telangana 0.634 91
Kurnool Andhra Pradesh 0.619 135
Singrauli Madhya Pradesh 0.634 92
Bhind Madhya Pradesh 0.618 136
Chhatarpur Madhya Pradesh 0.634 93
Jhabua Madhya Pradesh 0.618 137
Bandipore Erstwhile J&K 0.634 94
Bhojpur Bihar 0.618 138
Pashchim
Bihar 0.633 95 Virudhunagar Tamil Nadu 0.617 139
Champaran (West)
Darbhanga Bihar 0.632 96 Sidhi Madhya Pradesh 0.617 140
Jalna Maharashtra 0.631 97 Gadag Karnataka 0.616 141
Bongaigaon Assam 0.631 98 Saharsa Bihar 0.616 142
Siddharthnagar Uttar Pradesh 0.631 99 Cuttack Orissa 0.616 143
Malkangiri Orissa 0.631 100 Jagatsinghapur Orissa 0.616 144
Dhule Maharashtra 0.630 101 Jharsuguda Orissa 0.615 145
Chitrakoot Uttar Pradesh 0.630 102 Bankura West Bengal 0.615 146
Umaria Madhya Pradesh 0.629 103 Shivpuri Madhya Pradesh 0.615 147
Prakasam Andhra Pradesh 0.628 104 Mirzapur Uttar Pradesh 0.615 148
Satna Madhya Pradesh 0.628 105 Panna Madhya Pradesh 0.615 149
Jamtara Jharkhand 0.627 106 Baramulla Erstwhile J&K 0.614 150
Munger Bihar 0.627 107 Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh 0.614 151
Howrah West Bengal 0.627 108 South Twenty-Four
West Bengal 0.614 152
Kheri Parganas
Uttar Pradesh 0.627 109 Koderma Jharkhand 0.613 153
(Lakhimpur Kheri)
Garhwa Jharkhand 0.626 110 Dhenkanal Orissa 0.613 154
Mahrajganj Uttar Pradesh 0.626 111 Subarnapur
Orissa 0.613 155
(Sonepur)
Karbi Anglong Assam 0.626 112
Satara Maharashtra 0.612 156
Jehanabad Bihar 0.626 113
Bidar Karnataka 0.612 157
Guntur Andhra Pradesh 0.625 114
Sheikhpura Bihar 0.612 158
Ganderbal Erstwhile J&K 0.623 115
Begusarai Bihar 0.611 159
Samastipur Bihar 0.623 116
Banda Uttar Pradesh 0.610 160
Viluppuram Tamil Nadu 0.623 117
Birbhum West Bengal 0.609 161
Malda West Bengal 0.622 118
Purbi Singhbhum
Jharkhand 0.609 162
Tikamgarh Madhya Pradesh 0.622 119 (East)
Shahjahanpur Uttar Pradesh 0.622 120 Patna Bihar 0.609 163
Latehar Jharkhand 0.622 121 Hardoi Uttar Pradesh 0.608 164
Aurangabad Bihar 0.622 122 Kolar Karnataka 0.608 165
Erstwhile Jammu Debagarh
Udhampur 0.622 123 Orissa 0.608 166
& Kashmir (Deogarh)
Mahabubnagar Telangana 0.622 124 Yavatmal Maharashtra 0.607 167
Gonda Uttar Pradesh 0.621 125 Saran Bihar 0.607 168
Nalanda Bihar 0.621 126 Darjeeling West Bengal 0.607 169
Purba Medinipur West Bengal 0.621 127 Ballia Uttar Pradesh 0.606 170
Ukhrul Manipur 0.621 128 Srikakulam Andhra Pradesh 0.605 171
Anuppur Madhya Pradesh 0.620 129 Kannauj Uttar Pradesh 0.605 172
Srinagar Erstwhile J&K 0.620 130 Bhagalpur Bihar 0.605 173

132
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

District Considered States VI Ranking District Considered States VI Ranking

Erstwhile Jammu Aurangabad Maharashtra 0.592 217
Rajauri 0.605 174
& Kashmir
North Tripura Tripura 0.592 218
Kozhikode Kerala 0.605 175
Mau (maunath
Damoh Madhya Pradesh 0.605 176 Uttar Pradesh 0.591 219
Bhanjan)
Patan Gujarat 0.604 177 Jalaun Uttar Pradesh 0.591 220
Porbandar Gujarat 0.604 178 Yadgir Karnataka 0.590 221
Barwan Madhya Pradesh 0.603 179 Budgam Erstwhile J&K 0.590 222
Badaun Uttar Pradesh 0.603 180 Rampur Uttar Pradesh 0.589 223
Gondia Maharashtra 0.603 181 Bangalore
Karnataka 0.589 224
(Bengaluru Urban)
Deoghar Jharkhand 0.603 182
Mandsaur Madhya Pradesh 0.589 225
Koppal Karnataka 0.602 183
Hassan Karnataka 0.587 226
Pashchimi
Jharkhand 0.602 184 Baleswar (Balasore) Orissa 0.587 227
Singhbhum (West)
Wayanad Kerala 0.602 185 Jaisalmer Rajasthan 0.587 228
Kaimur (bhabua) Bihar 0.601 186 Barmer Rajasthan 0.587 229
Sri Potti Sriramulu Gulbarga
Andhra Pradesh 0.601 187 Karnataka 0.586 230
Nellore (Kalaburagi)
Sitapur Uttar Pradesh 0.600 188 Kendrapara Orissa 0.586 231
Udaipur Rajasthan 0.600 189 Ghazipur Uttar Pradesh 0.586 232
Haveri Karnataka 0.600 190 Kalahandi Orissa 0.586 233
Ahmedabad and Sultanpur Uttar Pradesh 0.585 234
Gujarat 0.600 191
Bhavnagar
Barabanki Uttar Pradesh 0.585 235
Katni Madhya Pradesh 0.599 192
Morena Madhya Pradesh 0.585 236
Baudh (Boudh) Orissa 0.599 193
Madurai Tamil Nadu 0.585 237
Bokaro Jharkhand 0.599 194
Dindori Madhya Pradesh 0.585 238
Dhanbad Jharkhand 0.599 195
Chandel Manipur 0.585 239
Ranchi Jharkhand 0.599 196
Rohtas Bihar 0.585 240
Reasi Erstwhile J&K 0.597 197
Hamirpur Uttar Pradesh 0.584 241
Dahod Gujarat 0.597 198
Cuddalore Tamil Nadu 0.584 242
Malappuram Kerala 0.597 199
Nanded Maharashtra 0.584 243
Kanpur Dehat Uttar Pradesh 0.596 200
Basti Uttar Pradesh 0.584 244
Mon Nagaland 0.596 201
Thane Maharashtra 0.583 245
Mainpuri Uttar Pradesh 0.596 202
Uttar Dinajpur West Bengal 0.583 246
Dumka Jharkhand 0.596 203
Gumla Jharkhand 0.583 247
Gautam Buddha
Uttar Pradesh 0.596 204
Nagar Jamnagar Gujarat 0.582 248
Jammu Erstwhile J&K 0.595 205 Seoni Madhya Pradesh 0.582 249
Chandauli Azamgarh Uttar Pradesh 0.581 250
Uttar Pradesh 0.595 206
(Varanasi Dehat)
Firozabad Uttar Pradesh 0.581 251
Etawah Uttar Pradesh 0.595 207
Jaunpur Uttar Pradesh 0.581 252
Dharwad Karnataka 0.594 208
Faridabad Haryana 0.580 253
Kolhapur Maharashtra 0.593 209
Thoubal Manipur 0.580 254
Bijnor Uttar Pradesh 0.593 210
Erstwhile Jammu
Farrukhabad Uttar Pradesh 0.593 211 Kathua 0.580 255
& Kashmir
Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh 0.593 212 Senapati Manipur 0.579 256
Surendranagar and Raichur Karnataka 0.579 257
Gujarat 0.593 213
rajkot
Bargarh Orissa 0.578 258
Samba Erstwhile J&K 0.592 214
Deoria Uttar Pradesh 0.578 259
Rae bareli Uttar Pradesh 0.592 215
Sagar Madhya Pradesh 0.577 260
Ashoknagar Madhya Pradesh 0.592 216

133
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

District Considered States VI Ranking District Considered States VI Ranking

Nashik Maharashtra 0.577 261 Kanpur Nagar Uttar Pradesh 0.565 305
Chikballapur Karnataka 0.577 262 Bijapur Karnataka 0.564 306
Raigarh Chhattisgarh 0.577 263 Bharatpur Rajasthan 0.564 307
Dhalai Tripura 0.577 264 Valsad Gujarat 0.564 308
Tawang Arunachal Pradesh 0.576 265 Varanasi Uttar Pradesh 0.563 309
Kheda and Panch- Banswara Rajasthan 0.563 310
Gujarat 0.576 266
mahal
Bagalkot Karnataka 0.563 311
Longleng Nagaland 0.576 267
Davanagere Karnataka 0.561 312
East Godavari Andhra Pradesh 0.575 268
Pali Rajasthan 0.561 313
Ahmednagar Maharashtra 0.575 269
Ratlam Madhya Pradesh 0.560 314
Bangalore rural Karnataka 0.575 270
Salem Tamil Nadu 0.560 315
Tirap Arunachal Pradesh 0.575 271
Erstwhile Jammu
Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh 0.574 272 Kulgam 0.559 317
& Kashmir
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 0.574 273 Angul Orissa 0.559 318
Ajmer Rajasthan 0.574 274 Uttara Kannada Karnataka 0.558 319
Bhadrak Orissa 0.573 275 Tehri Garhwal Uttarakhand 0.558 320
Thiruvananthapuram Kerala 0.573 276 Wardha Maharashtra 0.558 321
Navsari Gujarat 0.573 277 Chittoor Andhra Pradesh 0.558 322
Nadia West Bengal 0.573 278 Imphal East Manipur 0.557 323
Guna Madhya Pradesh 0.572 279 Fatehpur Uttar Pradesh 0.557 324
Pudukottai Tamil Nadu 0.572 280 Kannur Kerala 0.556 325
Banaskantha Gujarat 0.572 281 West Sikkim Sikkim 0.556 326
Tamenglong Manipur 0.572 282 Beed Maharashtra 0.556 327
Parbhani Maharashtra 0.572 283 Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 0.555 328
Agra Uttar Pradesh 0.572 284 Rajgarh Madhya Pradesh 0.555 329
Chandrapur Maharashtra 0.571 285 Vadodara Gujarat 0.555 330
Kushinagar Uttar Pradesh 0.571 286 Karauli Rajasthan 0.554 332
Krishna Andhra Pradesh 0.571 287 Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan 0.554 333
Tapi Gujarat 0.571 288 South Sikkim Sikkim 0.554 334
Bhandara Maharashtra 0.570 289 Jaintia Hills (East and
Meghalaya 0.554 335
Jaintia Hills)
Bharuch Gujarat 0.570 290
Sabarkantha Gujarat 0.554 336
Neemuch Madhya Pradesh 0.570 291
Raigad Maharashtra 0.553 337
Etah Uttar Pradesh 0.568 292
Jodhpur Rajasthan 0.553 338
Mahamaya nagar
Uttar Pradesh 0.568 293 Gurdaspur Punjab 0.553 339
(Hathras)
Thiruvannamalai Tamil Nadu 0.567 294 Rajsamand Rajasthan 0.553 340
Krishnagiri Tamil Nadu 0.566 295 Dima Hasao Assam 0.553 341
Kollam Kerala 0.566 296 Thiruvallur Tamil Nadu 0.553 342
Hardwar Bardhaman
Uttarakhand 0.566 297 West Bengal 0.553 343
(Haridwar) (Paschim & Purba)
West Godavari Andhra Pradesh 0.566 298 Kendujhar (Keojhar) Orissa 0.552 344
Churachandpur Manipur 0.566 299 Dharmapuri Tamil Nadu 0.551 345
Akola Maharashtra 0.566 300 Kurung Kumey Arunachal Pradesh 0.551 346
Nagaur Rajasthan 0.566 301 Puri Orissa 0.551 347
Amreli Gujarat 0.565 302 Belgaum (Belagavi) Karnataka 0.550 348
Sivagangai Tamil Nadu 0.565 303 East Sikkim Sikkim 0.550 349
Nalgonda and Wa- Dungarpur Rajasthan 0.550 350
Telangana 0.565 304
rangal

134
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

District Considered States VI Ranking District Considered States VI Ranking

Dhaulpur Ujjain Madhya Pradesh 0.536 395
Rajasthan 0.549 351
(Dholpur) Faizabad
Auraiya Uttar Pradesh 0.549 352 Uttar Pradesh 0.536 396
(Ayodhya)
Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh 0.549 353 Sirohi Rajasthan 0.536 397
Bhilwara Rajasthan 0.549 354 Udupi Karnataka 0.536 398
The dangs (Dangs) Gujarat 0.548 355 Churu Rajasthan 0.536 399
Sindhudurg Maharashtra 0.548 356 Mahendragarh
Haryana 0.535 400
(Narnal)
Pathanamthitta Kerala 0.548 357
Kasaragod Kerala 0.535 401
Kaushambi Uttar Pradesh 0.548 358
Faridkot Punjab 0.533 402
Latur Maharashtra 0.548 359
Ratnagiri Maharashtra 0.533 403
Bhiwani Haryana 0.548 360
Unnao Uttar Pradesh 0.532 404
Alappuzha Kerala 0.548 361
Kancheepuram Tamil Nadu 0.532 405
Saharanpur Uttar Pradesh 0.547 362
Ballari Karnataka 0.532 406
Mamit Mizoram 0.547 363
North Twenty Four
West Bengal 0.532 407
Hoogli West Bengal 0.547 364 Parganas
Jalgaon Maharashtra 0.547 365 Sundargarh Orissa 0.532 408
Dausa Rajasthan 0.546 366 Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 0.531 409
Aizawl (East and west Murshidabad West Bengal 0.531 410
Mizoram 0.546 367
Aizawl)
Jhansi Uttar Pradesh 0.531 411
Ambedkar nagar Uttar Pradesh 0.546 368
Muzaffarnagar Uttar Pradesh 0.531 412
Sambalpur Orissa 0.546 369
Korba Chhattisgarh 0.530 413
Karimnagar Telangana 0.546 370
Gwalior Madhya Pradesh 0.529 414
Erstwhile Jammu
Shopian 0.546 371 Pratapgarh Rajasthan 0.529 415
& Kashmir
Mysore (Mysuru) Karnataka 0.545 372 Moga Punjab 0.528 416
Gajapati Orissa 0.544 373 Anantapur Andhra Pradesh 0.528 417
Tumkur Karnataka 0.544 374 Tarn Tarn Punjab 0.527 418
Balaghat Madhya Pradesh 0.544 375 Surguja Chhattisgarh 0.527 419
Kottayam Kerala 0.544 376 Bagpat Uttar Pradesh 0.527 420
Alirajpur Madhya Pradesh 0.543 377 Khandwa (East
Madhya Pradesh 0.527 421
Nimar)
Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand 0.543 378
Vellore Tamil Nadu 0.527 422
Champawat Uttarakhand 0.542 379
Bastar Chhattisgarh 0.526 423
Ernakulam Kerala 0.542 380
Aligarh Uttar Pradesh 0.526 424
Bikaner Rajasthan 0.541 381
Namakkal Tamil Nadu 0.526 425
Kapurthala Punjab 0.541 382
Muktsar Punjab 0.526 426
Nagapattinam Tamil Nadu 0.541 383
Jashpur Chhattisgarh 0.526 427
Pune Maharashtra 0.540 384
Gandhinagar Gujarat 0.526 428
Tuticorin (Thoothuku-
Tamil Nadu 0.540 385 West Kameng Arunachal Pradesh 0.525 429
di) 1987
North goa Goa 0.540 386 Karur Tamil Nadu 0.525 430
Allahabad Lalitpur Uttar Pradesh 0.525 431
Uttar Pradesh 0.539 387
(PrayagRaj)
Jhajjar Haryana 0.524 432
Palakkad Kerala 0.539 388
Lunglei Mizoram 0.524 433
Ramgarh Jharkhand 0.539 389
South Garo Hills Meghalaya 0.524 434
Osmanabad Maharashtra 0.539 390
west Garo Hills Meghalaya 0.524 435
East Kameng Arunachal Pradesh 0.538 391
Tuensang Nagaland 0.523 436
Mehsana Gujarat 0.537 392
Rayagada Orissa 0.523 437
Changlang Arunachal Pradesh 0.537 393
Panchkula Haryana 0.523 438
Kandhamal Orissa 0.536 394

135
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

District Considered States VI Ranking District Considered States VI Ranking

Sangli Maharashtra 0.523 439 Dindigul Tamil Nadu 0.509 484
Theni Tamil Nadu 0.522 440 West Khasi Hills Meghalaya 0.508 485
Kiphire Nagaland 0.521 441 Solapur Maharashtra 0.508 486
Kadapa Andhra Pradesh 0.521 442 East Garo Hills Meghalaya 0.507 487
Moradabad Uttar Pradesh 0.521 443 Khargone (West
Madhya Pradesh 0.507 488
Nimar)
Tonk Rajasthan 0.520 444
Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh 0.507 489
Rohtak Haryana 0.520 445
Shimoga
Karnataka 0.506 490
Mansa Punjab 0.519 446 (Shivamoga)
Junagadh Gujarat 0.519 447 Jaipur Rajasthan 0.506 491
South Tripura Tripura 0.519 448 Kargil Erstwhile JJ&K 0.505 492
Thrissur Kerala 0.518 449 Hyderabad Telangana 0.505 493
Surat Gujarat 0.517 450 Vizianagaram Andhra Pradesh 0.504 494
Poonch Erstwhile J&K 0.517 451 Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh 0.504 495
Kanshiram Nagar Kolkata West Bengal 0.504 496
Uttar Pradesh 0.517 452
(Kasganj)
The Nilgiris Tamil Nadu 0.504 497
Mandya Karnataka 0.517 453
Burhanpur Madhya Pradesh 0.503 498
Narayanpur Chhattisgarh 0.515 454
Chamarajanagar Karnataka 0.503 499
Tichirappalli Tamil Nadu 0.515 455
Mumbai suburban Maharashtra 0.503 500
Almora Uttarakhand 0.515 456
Jind Haryana 0.502 501
Anand Gujarat 0.514 457
Palwal Haryana 0.502 502
Kaithal Haryana 0.514 458
Adilabad Telangana 0.502 503
Jhalawar Rajasthan 0.514 459
Tiruppur Tamil Nadu 0.502 504
Khammam Telangana 0.514 460
Nagpur Maharashtra 0.501 505
Sangrur Punjab 0.514 461
Kangra Himachal Pradesh 0.501 506
Kodagu Karnataka 0.513 462
Bundi Rajasthan 0.500 507
Peren Nagaland 0.513 463
Narsinghpur Madhya Pradesh 0.500 508
Mathura Uttar Pradesh 0.513 464
South goa Goa 0.500 509
Jalore Rajasthan 0.513 465
Pithoragarh Uttarakhand 0.499 510
Saiha Mizoram 0.513 466
Chennai Tamil Nadu 0.499 511
Gadchiroli Maharashtra 0.512 467
Ramanagara Karnataka 0.499 512
Chikkamagaluru Karnataka 0.512 468
Ambala Haryana 0.499 513
Amravati Maharashtra 0.512 469
Sonipat Haryana 0.498 514
Kamrup Assam 0.512 470
Kutch Gujarat 0.497 515
Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh 0.512 471
Barnala Punjab 0.496 516
Solan Himachal Pradesh 0.511 472
Lower Dibang Valley Arunachal Pradesh 0.496 517
Yamunanagar Haryana 0.511 473
Lohit Arunachal Pradesh 0.495 518
Kabirdham (Kaward-
Chhattisgarh 0.511 474 Idukki Kerala 0.495 519
ha)
Karnal Haryana 0.511 475 Koriya Chhattisgarh 0.495 520
Sehore Madhya Pradesh 0.510 476 Betul Madhya Pradesh 0.494 521
Bathinda Punjab 0.510 477 Kohima Nagaland 0.494 522
Dhar Madhya Pradesh 0.510 478 Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 0.494 523
Vidisha Madhya Pradesh 0.510 479 Baran Rajasthan 0.493 524
Chitradurga Karnataka 0.510 480 Panipat Haryana 0.493 525
Pratapgarh Uttar Pradesh 0.509 481 Chittorgarh Rajasthan 0.493 526
Wokha Nagaland 0.509 482 Uttarkashi Uttarakhand 0.491 527
West Tripura Tripura 0.509 483 Thanjavur Tamil Nadu 0.491 528

136
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

District Considered States VI Ranking District Considered States VI Ranking

Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 0.491 529 Harda Madhya Pradesh 0.464 571
Bageshwar Uttarakhand 0.490 530 Una Himachal Pradesh 0.464 572
Ri bhoi Meghalaya 0.490 531 Jalandhar Punjab 0.464 573
Durg Chhattisgarh 0.489 532 Garhwal
Uttarakhand 0.464 574
(Pauri Garhwal)
Dakshina Kannada Karnataka 0.488 533
Mayurbhanj Orissa 0.462 575
Shahid bhagat singh
Punjab 0.488 534 Coimbatore Tamil Nadu 0.462 576
nagar (nawanshahr)
Erstwhile Jammu Hoshiarpur Punjab 0.462 577
Kishtwar 0.488 535
& Kashmir
Sheopur Madhya Pradesh 0.462 578
Lower Subansiri and
Upper Arunachal Pradesh 0.488 536 Fatehgarh sahib Punjab 0.462 579
Subansiri Alwar Rajasthan 0.461 580
Rewari Haryana 0.487 537 East Siang and west
Arunachal Pradesh 0.461 581
Gorakhpur Uttar Pradesh 0.487 538 Siang
Rupnagar Punjab 0.487 539 Ludhiana Punjab 0.459 582

Mumbai Maharashtra 0.487 540 Hanumangarh Rajasthan 0.459 583

Kurukshetra Haryana 0.486 541 Serchhip Mizoram 0.459 584

Gurgaon Sahibzada Ajit Singh
Haryana 0.486 542 Punjab 0.458 585
(Gurugram) Nagar (Mohali)
Chhindwara Madhya Pradesh 0.486 543 Mandi Himachal Pradesh 0.455 586

Thirunelveli Tamil Nadu 0.486 544 Indore Madhya Pradesh 0.453 587

Doda Erstwhile J&K 0.485 545 North Sikkim Sikkim 0.452 588

Ganjam Orissa 0.485 546 Phek Nagaland 0.451 589

Sikar Rajasthan 0.485 547 Kanyakumari Tamil Nadu 0.450 590

Raisen Madhya Pradesh 0.485 548 Rudraprayag Uttarakhand 0.449 591

Erstwhile Jammu
Hoshangabad Madhya Pradesh 0.485 549 Leh (ladakh) 0.447 592
& Kashmir
Patiala Punjab 0.484 550 Narmada Gujarat 0.446 593
Upper Siang Arunachal Pradesh 0.484 551 Fatehabad Haryana 0.445 594
Uttar Bastar Ganganagar
Chhattisgarh 0.484 552 Rajasthan 0.445 595
Kanker (Kanker) (Sri Ganganagar)
East Khasi Hills Meghalaya 0.482 553 Bijapur Chhattisgarh 0.443 596
Ferozpur Punjab 0.482 554 Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh 0.439 597
Dewas Madhya Pradesh 0.482 555 Nainital Uttarakhand 0.438 598
Amritsar Punjab 0.481 556 Puri Orissa 0.434 599
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 0.480 557 Kota Rajasthan 0.431 600
Datia Madhya Pradesh 0.480 558 Kolasib Mizoram 0.425 601
Meerut Uttar Pradesh 0.480 559 Mokokchung Nagaland 0.421 602
Hamirpur Himachal Pradesh 0.480 560 Erode Tamil Nadu 0.414 603
Dakshin bastar
Chhattisgarh 0.478 561 Dimapur Nagaland 0.413 604
Dantewada
Raipur Chhattisgarh 0.477 562 Chamoli Uttarakhand 0.409 605

Sirsa Haryana 0.476 563 Shimla Himachal Pradesh 0.396 606

Champhai Mizoram 0.473 564 Kullu Himachal Pradesh 0.392 607

Erstwhile Jammu Dehradun Uttarakhand 0.387 608
Anantnag 0.471 565
& Kashmir Chamba Himachal Pradesh 0.369 609
Hisar Haryana 0.469 566
Sirmaur Himachal Pradesh 0.369 610
Shajapur Madhya Pradesh 0.469 567
Kinnaur Himachal Pradesh 0.350 611
Thiruvarur Tamil Nadu 0.468 568
Lahul & Spiti Himachal Pradesh 0.344 612
Zunheboto Nagaland 0.466 569
Jhunjhunu Rajasthan 0.465 570

137
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Appendix_Table 7: Actual values of Indicators for Andhra Pradesh

% area covered under centrally funded crop insurance

Health infrastructure per thousand population

% of marginal and small operational holders

% HH With improved drinking water source

% Womens participation in workforce
Forest area per 100 rural population
Proportion of rainfed agriculture

% Households with Electricity

Yield variability of foodgrains

(PMFBY, WBCIS)

Road Density
MGNREGA
Districts

IMR
Anantapur 0.69 1.13 0.84 0.03 0.41 58.62 0.07 0.18 73.00 99.10 61.30 0.19

Chittoor 0.90 0.21 0.53 0.11 0.38 50.96 0.09 0.19 56.00 98.60 65.30 0.18

East Godavari 0.93 0.29 0.35 0.13 0.26 47.88 0.14 0.20 46.00 99.10 82.10 0.13

Guntur 0.90 0.33 0.47 0.03 0.39 30.10 0.23 0.17 41.00 99.50 74.80 0.13

Y.S.R. (Kadapa) 0.83 0.93 0.61 0.23 0.38 55.54 0.06 0.19 44.00 99.70 55.80 0.28

Krishna 0.90 0.23 0.43 0.02 0.35 32.56 0.23 0.17 60.00 99.00 70.00 0.11

Kurnool 0.74 0.54 0.79 0.07 0.43 40.33 0.06 0.17 55.00 99.70 81.70 0.14

Prakasam 0.82 0.48 0.75 0.12 0.42 46.22 0.04 0.19 44.00 97.70 58.20 0.12

Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore 0.88 0.15 0.30 0.06 0.35 36.66 0.09 0.20 40.00 97.90 67.70 0.16

Srikakulam 0.95 0.58 0.39 0.04 0.41 59.36 0.08 0.21 58.00 97.30 75.70 0.19

Visakhapatnam 0.91 0.42 0.58 0.17 0.34 62.16 0.13 0.17 60.00 98.50 84.30 0.18

Vizianagaram 0.92 0.37 0.42 0.06 0.41 70.24 0.08 0.22 73.00 98.10 89.50 0.16

West Godavari 0.91 0.27 0.22 0.05 0.32 40.34 0.10 0.20 44.00 98.70 74.30 0.10

138
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Appendix_Table 8: Actual values of Indicators for Arunachal Pradesh

Diversity Index of the Main Source of Income for Rural

Value of Output of Total horticulture (only perennial)

Total Number of Livestock per 1000 rural households

Percentage of Net Area Irrigated to net sown area

Average Person days/household employed under

Variability in Food Grain Crop yield (Ton/ha)

% of Landless, Marginal and Small farmers

Fair Price shops per 1000 population

/ Value of agricultural output 2018
% of area under Water Bodies

MGNREGA over last 6 years

Ground Water Availability
Water Availability

Drainage Density

HHs; SECC,2011
Crop Diversity

Road Density
Districts

Tawang 10.85 0.13 3457.98 2.37 95.00 2.34 15.00 0.22 0.88 219.00 0.76 0.64 0.69 15.01

West Kameng 5.86 0.14 12244.17 3.27 69.00 1.12 15.76 0.28 0.91 115.00 0.80 0.21 0.63 17.49

East Kameng 15.00 0.19 9246.95 3.26 22.00 3.86 147.55 0.46 0.23 200.00 2.24 0.20 0.39 7.39

Papum Pare 37.46 0.14 8948.70 3.66 32.00 1.42 119.32 0.57 0.33 117.00 1.29 0.19 0.63 12.94

Lower
59.65 0.27 9368.93 3.71 59.00 0.98 23.08 0.55 0.75 291.00 1.53 0.19 0.56 12.52
Subansiri

Kurung
39.41 0.49 23038.09 2.89 35.00 1.23 23.00 0.35 0.95 40.00 0.72 0.12 0.35 14.30
Kumey

Upper
15.32 0.20 21980.00 3.33 19.00 0.94 3.00 0.41 0.69 150.00 1.04 0.15 0.36 10.17
Subansiri

West Siang 44.36 0.15 23981.20 3.07 40.00 1.22 56.01 0.63 0.25 77.00 1.24 0.15 0.39 20.16

East Siang 38.36 0.10 5046.01 2.59 17.00 4.41 677.46 0.47 0.85 266.00 1.10 0.16 0.51 8.96

Upper Siang 21.28 0.20 20909.93 2.84 43.00 1.92 670.00 0.47 0.37 163.00 3.71 0.13 0.40 17.20

Dibang Valley 3.22 0.13 27968.77 3.61 13.00 1.70 850.00 0.31 0.37 61.00 3.75 0.04 0.60 5.11

Lower Dibang
47.38 0.12 10685.38 2.52 15.00 5.97 856.18 0.42 0.84 213.00 1.02 0.11 0.54 16.60
Valley

Lohit 24.96 0.10 10207.98 2.64 43.00 4.01 1756.77 0.39 1.25 297.00 0.21 0.17 0.55 31.08

Anjaw 3.36 0.34 1098.00 2.19 56.00 1.50 1740.00 0.36 0.29 65.00 4.63 0.08 0.48 11.22

Changlang 14.53 0.11 10237.11 2.57 49.00 1.95 249.42 0.51 1.29 124.00 0.50 0.19 0.44 27.51

Tirap 4.09 0.29 5046.01 3.32 64.00 0.85 83.27 0.34 0.67 16.00 0.26 0.57 0.31 11.84

139
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Appendix_Table 9: Actual values of Indicators for Assam

earning household member Less than Rs. 5,000 in rural

% area covered under centrally funded crop insurance

Average person days per household employed under

% of Households having Monthly income of highest

% of marginal and small operational holders

% HH With improved drinking water source

% HH using improved sanitation facility

% Womens participation in workforce
Forest area per 100 rural population
Proportion of rainfed agriculture

% Households with Electricity

Livestock to human ratio

% of Female literacy rate

(PMFBY, WBCIS)

Road Density
MGNREGA
Districts

area

IMR
Baksa 75.47 0.22 0.81 0.18 0.89 0.06 0.34 26.54 0.02 59.00 98.10 94.80 58.80 61.80

Barpeta 80.06 0.17 0.80 0.37 0.64 0.01 0.21 34.30 0.08 62.00 81.80 82.40 54.30 72.60
Bongaigaon 78.27 0.20 0.93 0.73 0.82 0.04 0.23 24.38 0.27 59.00 72.30 97.80 34.90 67.40
Cachar 72.66 0.14 0.85 0.17 0.96 0.16 0.23 39.37 0.09 56.00 88.40 74.00 45.90 71.40
Chirang 77.77 0.27 0.89 0.19 0.89 0.16 0.34 41.91 0.05 61.00 67.50 61.60 37.30 74.90
Darrang 82.30 0.32 0.88 0.34 0.79 0.01 0.24 32.03 0.12 70.00 72.00 70.80 32.60 63.30
Dhemaji 80.35 0.53 0.87 0.27 0.99 0.05 0.41 36.07 0.03 52.00 77.00 97.00 45.60 67.70
Dhubri 85.54 0.16 0.87 0.27 0.93 0.01 0.22 37.11 0.11 75.00 66.45 90.55 37.20 66.35
Dibrugarh 74.05 0.17 0.83 0.07 0.97 0.07 0.34 20.52 0.07 49.00 75.40 98.80 56.60 72.60
Dima Hasao 77.67 0.20 0.99 0.01 0.98 2.77 0.34 26.09 0.03 53.00 75.40 98.80 56.60 72.60
Goalpara 80.06 0.20 0.88 0.38 0.82 0.05 0.26 22.87 0.09 64.00 79.20 47.70 59.00 71.80
Golaghat 79.38 0.38 0.82 0.06 1.00 0.07 0.36 21.30 0.07 56.00 71.30 87.10 46.20 70.70
Hailakandi 80.88 0.14 0.89 0.29 0.96 0.13 0.20 24.35 0.11 71.00 86.80 94.30 59.60 75.80

Jorhat 70.38 0.32 0.85 0.19 0.96 0.06 0.36 32.07 0.12 49.00 71.25 69.65 50.25 77.75

Kamrup 71.58 0.20 0.33 0.58 0.94 0.07 0.32 29.79 0.08 56.00 88.80 93.90 52.60 76.70

Kamrup
57.56 0.06 0.87 0.02 0.85 0.21 0.23 33.09 0.82 47.00 95.00 80.10 61.20 84.30
Metropolitan

Karbi Anglong 80.22 0.29 0.84 0.02 0.85 0.94 0.36 23.65 0.01 70.00 88.35 66.25 51.35 73.10

Karimganj 73.79 0.15 0.79 0.12 0.96 0.08 0.20 30.15 0.09 67.00 71.30 62.80 39.50 78.60
Kokrajhar 78.18 0.26 0.91 0.18 0.82 0.14 0.31 38.39 0.02 75.00 74.10 76.50 39.20 64.50
Lakhimpur 76.76 0.39 0.85 0.27 0.89 0.03 0.34 46.99 0.08 55.00 77.60 73.40 49.60 79.00
Morigaon 81.02 0.21 0.88 0.31 0.98 0.02 0.27 42.61 0.06 69.00 77.70 98.00 40.10 73.00
Nagaon 77.86 0.20 0.85 0.22 0.80 0.04 0.22 36.95 0.09 63.00 83.40 92.70 45.50 73.30

Nalbari 66.64 0.20 0.82 0.10 0.98 0.02 0.21 42.09 0.13 48.00 84.00 98.40 51.20 79.30

Sivasagar 73.58 0.15 0.81 0.10 0.98 0.07 0.33 17.72 0.07 51.00 78.70 96.20 55.50 77.10
Sonitpur 76.51 0.28 0.86 0.13 0.88 0.06 0.30 30.71 0.05 64.00 79.60 71.20 61.00 68.30
Tinsukia 74.39 0.19 0.81 0.10 1.00 0.15 0.34 19.55 0.09 49.00 76.30 96.00 50.80 59.10
Udalguri 80.16 0.30 0.87 0.23 0.70 0.05 0.33 39.90 0.05 62.00 84.80 81.20 53.80 66.60

140
 Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
in India Using a Common Framework

Appendix_Table 10: Actual values of Indicators for Bihar

drinking water source

Proportion of rainfed

Health infrastructure

% HH with improved

% of Female literacy
days per household

Yield variability of
% of marginal and
small operational

employed under
Average person
participation in

per thousand
% Womens

population
agriculture

MGNREGA

foodgrains
workforce
Districts

holders

IMR

rate
Araria 0.95 0.53 0.34 32.07 0.10 71.00 99.60 38.80 0.33

Arwal 0.97 0.40 0.29 44.02 0.14 69.00 99.10 54.60 0.15
Aurangabad 0.94 0.17 0.28 49.80 0.13 60.00 98.80 59.30 0.29
Banka 0.98 0.26 0.33 40.50 0.14 56.00 92.90 42.70 0.38
Begusarai 0.98 0.13 0.24 42.30 0.12 56.00 99.10 50.70 0.40
Bhagalpur 0.98 0.61 0.25 44.34 0.15 50.00 97.30 54.60 0.32
Bhojpur 0.96 0.46 0.22 39.35 0.13 58.00 99.90 56.40 0.27
Buxar 0.90 0.33 0.25 40.22 0.12 64.00 99.70 62.90 0.47
Darbhanga 0.98 0.53 0.23 38.75 0.13 64.00 99.90 43.50 0.30
Gaya 0.96 0.42 0.35 40.49 0.08 66.00 96.70 50.20 0.25
Gopalganj 0.99 0.38 0.26 38.72 0.21 62.00 99.00 57.00 0.33
Jamui 0.96 0.45 0.38 47.58 0.13 58.00 78.60 44.40 0.39
Jehanabad 0.96 0.11 0.27 50.04 0.13 65.00 99.40 55.30 0.28

Kaimur (bhabua) 0.93 0.24 0.26 44.38 0.19 71.00 95.30 59.70 0.14

Katihar 0.98 0.70 0.25 39.71 0.07 67.00 99.20 40.20 0.41
Khagaria 0.95 0.25 0.29 33.26 0.23 54.00 98.80 44.20 0.37

Kishanganj 0.97 0.81 0.20 45.33 0.13 72.00 98.70 33.70 0.35

Lakhisarai 0.99 0.32 0.26 41.50 0.17 54.00 93.80 52.40 0.25
Madhepura 0.97 0.59 0.36 45.89 0.06 60.00 100.00 32.60 0.32
Madhubani 0.97 0.63 0.32 37.83 0.07 57.00 99.60 40.90 0.25
Munger 0.98 0.43 0.23 45.73 0.34 54.00 90.50 62.50 0.29
Muzaffarpur 0.98 0.51 0.23 35.83 0.04 60.00 99.40 53.80 0.26

Nalanda 0.96 0.38 0.33 48.92 0.21 60.00 97.90 48.80 0.34

Nawada 0.97 0.42 0.34 41.72 0.20 57.00 98.80 47.50 0.21
Pashchim Champaran (West) 0.97 0.34 0.32 37.15 0.10 64.00 96.10 44.40 0.34
Patna 0.98 0.55 0.24 40.14 0.04 62.00 98.80 64.70 0.30
Purba Champaran (East) 0.97 0.58 0.27 43.12 0.12 64.00 99.40 44.60 0.54
Purnia 0.93 0.71 0.30 38.02 0.11 70.00 99.70 41.10 0.54
Rohtas 0.96 0.21 0.30 38.41 0.13 59.00 99.40 64.20 0.21
Saharsa 0.95 0.37 0.30 46.09 0.16 57.00 99.70 39.00 0.23
Samastipur 0.99 0.38 0.23 59.71 0.05 54.00 98.50 50.00 0.34
Saran 0.99 0.38 0.18 53.01 0.11 54.00 98.40 57.50 0.25
Sheikhpura 0.98 0.42 0.33 47.18 0.75 59.00 94.40 49.10 0.29
Sheohar 0.97 0.31 0.23 41.85 0.17 71.00 99.50 40.90 0.32
Sitamarhi 0.99 0.21 0.22 36.02 0.03 67.00 100.00 37.60 0.37
Siwan 0.98 0.37 0.22 45.58 0.08 55.00 98.40 61.60 0.38
Supaul 0.96 0.54 0.37 41.98 0.20 58.00 99.90 35.90 0.21
Vaishali 0.99 0.44 0.19 41.13 0.06 56.00 97.60 54.10 0.34

141
 Appendix_Table 11: Actual values of Indicators for Chhattisgarh

142
alternate

Districts
Crop, livestock, and
fish yield variability
Percentage net area
cultivated under
Horticulture
Percentage of
available water
resources under fish
culture
Forest dependence
of rural tribal
communities
Number of
approved
Minor Forest
Produce (MFP)
Microenterprises
Percentage of
rural households
below the poverty
line - adjusted for
inequalities
Dependency ratio
Access to an
employment
sources (MGNREGS)
Number of
establishments
(OAE, Estt., Micro,
small and Medium)
IMR
Number of
functional Health
Care Facilities/
10,000 population
Households with
any usual member
covered by a health
scheme or health
insurance

Balod 13.13 0.04 95.57 0.17 0.00 88.49 80.60 45.88 2324.50 32.84 2.90 68.30
Baloda Bazar 12.34 0.22 92.19 0.16 0.00 92.71 88.67 42.45 2658.80 38.00 1.04 58.50
in India Using a Common Framework

Balrampur 16.35 0.17 91.61 0.62 0.00 93.05 85.14 55.17 1009.60 41.00 1.62 71.80
Bastar 19.46 0.69 86.72 0.42 20.89 92.56 75.30 43.03 1737.80 33.68 5.32 71.20
Bemetara 23.53 0.41 88.63 0.00 0.00 88.49 80.60 43.27 1279.40 38.00 2.17 68.30
Bijapur 21.36 0.31 86.79 2.46 0.00 90.66 78.79 53.05 253.50 36.00 2.52 86.00
Bilaspur 17.11 0.18 91.93 0.20 17.82 93.02 89.27 57.45 4343.50 34.21 1.01 69.00
Dantewara
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

23.46 0.31 98.11 0.92 10.00 90.74 71.61 52.37 997.70 36.00 2.00 65.00
Dhamtari 20.33 0.15 97.96 0.48 11.42 89.34 71.33 47.91 2256.30 37.71 2.52 83.20
Durg 26.26 0.30 95.94 0.00 0.00 88.49 80.60 41.16 5266.90 32.84 2.36 68.30
Gariaband 18.80 0.13 94.63 0.73 12.12 92.71 88.67 54.09 925.40 35.65 2.37 58.50
Janjgir-Champa 18.51 0.11 99.35 0.03 0.00 92.73 75.81 40.50 3159.40 37.29 0.89 70.10
Jashpur 14.55 0.35 89.70 0.46 17.50 91.97 67.62 50.89 1384.10 41.26 3.85 78.10
Kanker 17.67 0.08 90.58 0.79 37.33 90.96 70.22 59.90 4853.70 36.12 5.31 78.90
Kawardha 18.28 0.22 97.51 0.36 0.00 90.95 86.87 58.71 6983.00 41.69 0.97 66.40
Kondagaon 11.47 0.22 96.97 0.63 29.67 92.56 75.30 43.19 1067.20 36.00 2.10 71.20
Korba 20.66 0.10 98.11 0.73 30.12 91.84 85.74 41.91 11836.20 38.08 2.20 62.30
Koriya 22.28 0.14 92.80 1.03 27.51 90.55 80.85 65.56 1446.50 41.04 3.38 63.40
Mahasamund 18.11 0.04 85.48 0.27 0.00 93.59 77.27 44.45 2299.10 45.38 2.35 73.10
Mungeli 5.90 0.32 92.42 0.26 0.00 93.02 89.27 48.82 1177.90 38.00 0.87 69.00
Narayanpur 15.23 0.05 98.33 1.89 25.20 92.83 83.40 46.99 235.40 36.00 5.79 81.40
Raigarh 16.34 0.28 98.72 0.37 20.83 92.20 79.83 37.87 3004.60 43.59 2.04 62.60

Raipur 24.20 0.23 90.07 0.00 30.27 92.71 88.67 44.88 7224.40 36.83 1.18 58.50

Rajnandgaon 20.39 0.12 97.62 0.33 17.50 90.82 72.39 56.64 4298.70 38.66 2.47 76.60
Sukma 11.18 0.24 95.83 1.75 8.88 90.74 71.61 57.93 2938.90 34.87 2.22 65.00
Surajpur 9.02 0.30 90.81 0.47 0.00 93.05 85.14 61.64 1187.00 40.00 3.34 71.80
Surguja 17.79 0.28 99.94 0.51 38.80 93.05 85.14 46.96 1351.40 40.50 2.13 71.80
 Appendix_Table 12: Actual values of Indicators for Gujarat

Districts
% of Households
having Monthly income
of highest earning
household member
Less than Rs. 5,000 in
rural area
Livestock to human
ratio
% of marginal and small
operational holders
Proportion of rainfed
agriculture
Percentage area under
forest cover
Women’s’ participation
in workforce
Average person
days per household
employed under
MGNREGA
Road density
Health infrastructure
per thousand
population
IMR
Percentage of
households with access
to electricity
Percentage of
households improved
drinking water source
Percentage of
households with
improved sanitation
facility
Female literacy rate
Yield variability of food
grains

Ahmedabad 62.77 0.1 0.6 0.71 1.62 0.21 44.84 0.2 0.08 60 99.35 95.4 77.15 74.35 0.2
Amreli 56.82 0.19 0.58 0.81 3.52 0.31 49.65 0.12 0.2 50 98.9 96.6 74.8 76.7 0.22
Anand 72.67 0.28 0.89 0.23 1.58 0.26 35.96 0.2 0.17 62 97.6 96.2 67.2 76.7 0.18
Banaskantha 68.35 0.69 0.55 1 7.66 0.33 42.99 0.04 0.29 52 87.3 97.8 39.6 56.1 0.32
Bharuch 64.15 0.14 0.63 0.78 4.26 0.25 46.91 0.15 0.19 56 96.1 85.9 67.2 72.4 0.21
Bhavnagar 62.77 0.1 0.6 0.71 1.62 0.21 44.84 0.2 0.08 60 99.35 95.4 77.15 74.35 0.2
Dahod 81.95 0.42 0.61 0.64 14.55 0.46 46.26 0.08 0.36 66 78.5 72.5 21.9 52.2 0.27
Gandhinagar 69.31 0.29 0.82 0.37 4.3 0.24 39.78 0.45 0.16 56 94.8 96.5 62.3 68.8 0.15
Jamnagar 59.4 0.28 0.56 0.81 3.32 0.24 48.52 0.07 0.21 48 98 88.8 68 72.5 0.15
Junagadh 60 0.21 0.69 0.6 19.17 0.29 38.33 0.1 0.19 52 99.3 97.8 75.1 77 0.15
Kutch 59.74 0.38 0.39 0.74 5.13 0.2 59.51 0.02 0.25 51 95.4 81.5 61.5 56.7 0.08
Kheda 80.46 0.41 0.81 0.52 2.39 0.67 42.09 0 0.22 60.5 90.2 88.95 45.55 67.8 0.24
Mehsana 71.88 0.31 0.81 0.5 3.6 0.28 51.11 0.08 0.18 59 96.8 92.7 66.1 77.1 0.2
Narmada 82.28 0.31 0.65 0.31 33.65 0.41 42.47 0.04 0.35 60 91.3 97.6 34.8 70.2 0.19
Navsari 74.48 0.13 0.83 0.48 16.14 0.31 31.48 0.23 0.27 52 97.8 67.2 68.8 84.3 0.23
Panchmahal 80.46 0.41 0.81 0.52 2.39 0.67 42.09 0 0.22 60.5 90.2 88.95 45.55 67.8 0.24
Patan 74.8 0.36 0.58 0.7 1.77 0.31 38.04 0.05 0.3 57 93.2 95.8 56.3 61.4 0.33
Porbandar 62.27 0.3 0.66 0.84 5.47 0.25 47 0.14 0.18 51 99.3 85.1 72.4 78.5 0.26
Rajkot 58.52 0.22 0.75 0.71 1.67 0.24 48.72 0.18 0.2 49 97.1 86.8 60 74.6 0.16
Sabarkantha 71.6 0.52 0.74 0.63 1.38 0.37 39.2 0.07 0.25 58 95.2 94.2 46.7 68.2 0.2
Surat 63.57 0.06 0.71 0.4 10.99 0.16 36.84 0.51 0.08 48 98.3 93.4 77.4 81 0.19
Surendranagar 58.52 0.22 0.75 0.71 1.67 0.24 48.72 0.18 0.2 49 97.1 86.8 60 74.6 0.16
Tapi 66.29 0.37 0.68 0.61 25.24 0.44 22.62 0.04 0.36 53 91.6 87.6 38.6 67.2 0.27
Dang (The Dangs) 83.17 0.33 0.29 0.94 77.16 0.48 50.88 0.02 0.36 55 87 69.9 19.4 56.9 0.33
Vadodara 68.7 0.19 0.72 0.59 7.99 0.27 45.93 0.2 0.17 58 97 95.5 60.8 71.6 0.21

143
Valsad 71.49 0.15 0.82 0.64 32.77 0.31 34.81 0.24 0.25 45 98.3 68.7 61.2 76.2 0.18
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
 Appendix_Table 13: Actual values of Indicators for Haryana

144
in India Using a Common Framework

Districts
% of women participation in
workforce
% of households with electricity
IMR
Landless, marginal and small farmers
(land<5 acre)
Variability of food grain crop yield
(ton/ha)
Average days of employment
provided per Household under
MGNERGA in days
Proportion of rainfed agriculture
Forest area (in ha)/1000 rural
population
Per Capita Income
Total no. of livestock to human ratio
Number of functional health centres /
1000 population
% of Villages connected with Paved
roads
Road Density
Total Area Insured
Total Ground Water Extraction per
1000 Hectare

Ambala 0.14 95.28 43.00 0.76 0.08 36.27 0.12 8.44 0.83 0.14 0.12 100.00 0.69 0.65 51.14

Bhiwani 0.31 97.50 50.00 0.67 0.13 24.48 0.50 6.93 0.96 0.26 0.16 100.00 0.49 2.85 74.40
Faridabad 0.18 98.16 57.00 0.78 0.13 42.25 0.00 18.93 0.71 0.07 0.07 100.00 0.66 0.09 18.55
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

Fatehbad 0.29 97.92 57.00 0.60 0.07 35.64 0.02 7.28 0.94 0.27 0.17 100.00 0.58 2.03 92.96
Gurgaon 0.21 97.50 41.00 0.79 0.12 52.37 0.00 18.85 0.00 0.08 0.08 100.00 0.50 0.23 42.12
Hisar 0.29 97.50 53.00 0.55 0.07 28.22 0.24 5.31 0.90 0.25 0.14 100.00 0.49 2.94 66.27
Jhajjar 0.23 97.92 47.00 0.81 0.15 38.13 0.17 5.58 0.92 0.18 0.18 100.00 0.60 0.47 21.17
Jind 0.30 99.38 56.00 0.75 0.07 31.65 0.02 6.66 0.96 0.28 0.15 100.00 0.37 1.83 102.04
Kaithal 0.22 100.00 64.00 0.60 0.08 31.19 0.00 8.61 0.95 0.26 0.16 100.00 0.72 0.94 104.78
Karnal 0.20 94.38 65.00 0.69 0.09 37.12 0.01 7.35 0.89 0.17 0.12 100.00 0.59 1.17 118.70
Kurukshetra 0.22 97.92 49.00 0.67 0.08 24.62 0.00 6.59 0.92 0.18 0.15 100.00 0.70 1.03 73.01
Mahendragarh 0.31 97.92 54.00 0.78 0.12 49.09 0.72 7.26 0.98 0.20 0.18 100.00 0.50 0.82 26.30
Mewat 0.23 89.58 78.00 0.71 0.13 54.02 0.40 8.18 1.00 0.14 0.11 98.13 0.55 0.17 18.73

Palwal 0.22 79.02 57.00 0.00 0.07 54.64 0.07 3.66 0.95 0.18 0.12 100.00 0.53 0.45 50.14

Panchkula 0.22 98.21 50.00 0.75 0.15 37.73 0.80 154.05 0.82 0.13 0.11 100.00 0.58 0.09 8.32
Panipat 0.20 92.97 49.00 0.70 0.09 42.50 0.00 6.39 0.72 0.14 0.10 99.12 0.62 0.52 56.07

Rewari 0.30 94.79 81.00 0.74 0.13 32.14 0.04 7.40 0.82 0.17 0.15 100.00 0.60 0.71 35.08

Rohtak 0.21 97.62 46.00 0.79 0.15 44.24 0.14 7.47 0.92 0.16 0.14 100.00 0.54 0.45 19.06
Sirsa 0.26 95.63 52.00 0.58 0.21 20.57 0.07 4.96 0.93 0.27 0.14 100.00 0.40 3.78 128.88
Sonipat 0.25 88.75 45.00 0.70 0.09 39.63 0.01 9.41 0.88 0.16 0.14 100.00 0.60 0.90 66.85
Yamuna Nagar 0.12 97.66 51.00 0.66 0.09 44.40 0.03 30.78 0.91 0.14 0.12 100.00 0.63 0.40 75.49
Charkhi Dadri 0.31 97.50 50.00 0.67 0.13 24.48 0.50 6.93 0.96 0.26 0.16 100.00 0.49 2.85 74.40
 Appendix_Table 14: Actual values of Indicators for Himachal Pradesh

District
% of Households having
Monthly income of highest
earning household member
Less than Rs. 5,000 in rural
area
Livestock to human ratio
% area covered under centrally
funded crop insurance
Proportion of rainfed
agriculture
Forest area per 100 rural
population
% Women participation in
workforce
Average person days per
household employed under
MGNREGA
Road Density
Health infrastructure per
thousand population
IMR
% HH with improved drinking
water source
% of Female literacy rate
Yield variability of food grains

Bilaspur 48.5 0.30 0.29 0.86 0.11 0.46 47.92 0.07 0.44 56 82.8 92.1 0.25

Chamba 67.71 0.44 1.48 0.91 0.51 0.46 69.09 0.02 0.45 46 89.4 75 0.28

Hamirpur 37.76 0.21 0.41 0.94 0.08 0.51 40.31 0.09 0.42 46 96.8 97.8 0.24

Kangra 48.69 0.21 0.23 0.7 0.17 0.4 39.61 0.03 0.38 57 97.8 94.3 0.21

Kinnaur 52.41 0.28 59.85 0.34 0.77 0.4 60.9 0.00 0.76 47 92.7 87.7 0.21

Kullu 64.88 0.26 41.74 0.93 0.5 0.45 41.94 0.01 0.32 46 94.7 82.3 0.2

Lahual & Spiti 50.01 0.32 12.28 0.09 0.51 0.44 35.5 0.00 1.81 43 97.1 80.9 0.27

Mandi 56.6 0.31 9.89 0.85 0.19 0.48 46.96 0.04 0.44 38 96 86.9 0.71

Shimla 53.44 0.19 53.68 0.97 0.39 0.4 41.34 0.05 0.26 45 97.8 85.8 0.27

Sirmaur 64.47 0.37 1.08 0.61 0.29 0.4 49.78 0.03 0.75 58 90.7 82.1 0.22

Solan 53.44 0.26 0.17 0.64 0.19 0.36 42.97 0.08 0.39 46 91.9 86.1 0.36

Una 50.64 0.25 0.36 0.54 0.13 0.34 53.13 0.11 0.33 59 98.5 91.9 0.21

145
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
 Appendix_Table 15: Actual values of Indicators for Jharkhand

146
Districts
% of Households
having Monthly income
of highest earning
household member Less
than Rs. 5,000 in rural
area
% of marginal and small
operational holders
% area covered under
centrally funded crop
insurance (PMFBY,
WBCIS)
Proportion of rainfed
agriculture
Forest area per 100 rural
population
Average person days per
household employed
under MGNREGA
Health infrastructure per
thousand population
% HH with improved
drinking water source
% of Female literacy rate
Coefficient of variation/
yield variability of food
grains

Bokaro 76.12 0.83 1.03 0.89 0.05 44.39 0.07 79.80 63.30 0.22
in India Using a Common Framework

Chatra 83.23 0.90 0.83 0.77 0.18 43.28 0.11 66.50 52.40 0.34
Deoghar 84.13 0.81 0.90 0.83 0.02 46.20 0.14 86.60 52.70 0.11
Dhanbad 73.57 0.90 1.54 0.91 0.02 49.70 0.06 78.90 68.30 0.15
Dumka 89.00 0.68 0.23 0.90 0.05 50.83 0.23 89.00 51.80 0.11
Garhwa 81.29 0.92 0.79 0.81 0.11 47.72 0.10 86.30 51.00 0.41
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

Giridih 77.50 0.94 0.67 0.37 0.04 48.87 0.09 65.60 50.60 0.32
Godda 80.35 0.78 0.25 0.81 0.03 50.91 0.15 83.80 42.50 0.17
Gumla 70.78 0.76 0.15 0.94 0.15 48.20 0.25 47.50 68.00 0.07
Hazaribagh 72.31 0.92 0.53 0.81 0.09 45.74 0.09 67.50 62.60 0.18
Jamtara 86.97 0.77 0.31 0.93 0.01 59.04 0.19 90.40 46.90 0.20
Khunti 91.44 0.73 0.32 0.72 0.19 45.11 0.23 53.50 59.20 0.35
Koderma 74.69 0.81 0.49 0.77 0.18 46.65 0.12 80.60 57.60 0.15

Latehar 88.94 0.77 0.49 0.77 0.36 46.10 0.16 76.30 51.40 0.45

Lohardaga 85.41 0.75 0.30 0.74 0.12 39.87 0.20 71.20 60.00 0.16
Pakur 91.12 0.92 0.65 0.88 0.03 44.00 0.15 89.30 39.10 0.17

Palamu 76.09 0.93 0.77 0.66 0.07 38.94 0.11 90.50 58.00 0.41

Pashchimi Singhbhum (West) 53.78 0.71 0.22 0.98 0.26 37.22 0.25 68.90 49.80 0.24
Purbi Singhbhum (East) 67.03 0.88 0.50 0.96 0.11 42.06 0.12 90.20 71.40 0.19
Ramgarh 69.70 0.68 2.07 0.61 0.06 52.10 0.07 67.80 74.50 0.12
Ranchi 67.10 0.79 0.91 0.86 0.07 43.41 0.13 75.00 73.00 0.29
Sahebganj 85.53 0.86 0.32 0.93 0.06 40.30 0.13 77.60 45.90 0.19
Saraikela-kharswana 65.62 0.85 0.44 0.90 0.07 48.85 0.20 80.70 60.00 0.39
Simdega 79.17 0.68 0.17 0.97 0.22 47.26 0.28 59.60 58.60 0.51
 Appendix_Table 16: Actual values of Indicators for Karnataka

Districts
Per Capita Income
Livestock to human
ratio
% of marginal and
small farmers
Women participation
in labour
Forest area
Value of output of total
horticulture
% area under un-
irrigated
Variability in food grain
crop yield
Groundwater
extraction
Households having
kisan credit card
Road density
Access to electricity
Percentage of
households with
improved drinking
water facility
Average person’s
days per household
employed under
MGNREGA
SHG/1000 population
Health sector related
Infrastructure
No of doctors,
specialists, health
assistants & health
Workers

Belgaum (Belagavi) 82287 0.12 0.63 0.33 0.24 91.72 0.96 0.13 76.11 1.8 0.01 91.8 98.6 43.35 1.6 157 2.29

Bagalkot 121404 0.22 0.81 0.33 0.13 112.16 0.91 0.49 94.52 9.48 0.02 98.1 88.3 47.76 2.89 194 2.41
Bangalore (Bangaluru
320346 0.17 0.8 0.34 0.03 9.74 0.64 0.52 143.81 1.73 0.08 81.8 92 47.34 0.5 116 2.36
Urban)
Bangalore rural 139598 0.2 0.93 0.21 0.16 93.71 0.82 0.45 123.27 1.76 0.27 72.3 77.5 49.87 5.87 214 2.48
Ballari 116807 0.14 0.85 0.23 0.30 118.9 0.96 0.43 53.7 2.51 0.09 88.4 94.4 53.47 3.2 146 3.12
Bidar 73892 0.27 0.89 0.23 0.05 53.43 0.89 0.43 42.35 4.58 0.05 67.5 96 43.03 4.21 69 1.89
Bijapur 74741 0.32 0.88 0.34 0.01 59.37 0.79 0.58 80.31 10.88 0.12 72 88.2 45.1 3.52 46 1.45
Chamarajanagar 99988 0.53 0.87 0.24 2.67 102.76 0.99 0.61 82.67 1.3 0.03 77 95 44.63 7.62 135 2.67
Chikballapur 99600 0.16 0.87 0.41 0.22 14.35 0.93 0.47 164.11 1.01 0.11 66.45 76.9 47.53 4.97 93 1.94
Chikkamagaluru 175179 0.16 0.87 0.22 3.47 73.57 0.93 0.47 50.5 1.7 0.11 66.45 81.9 48.86 6.67 249 5.57
Chitradurga 88185 0.17 0.83 0.22 0.35 94.89 0.97 0.41 115.03 2.33 0.07 75.4 90.5 57.84 4.79 115 2.39
Dakshina Kannada 240448 0.2 0.99 0.34 1.47 84.29 0.98 0.47 62.6 3.16 0.03 75.4 85.7 47.31 2.29 351 4.72
Davanagere 89946 0.2 0.88 0.34 0.37 146.89 0.82 0.52 92.96 2.85 0.09 79.2 94.3 58.63 3.8 292 3.46
Dharwad 114827 0.38 0.82 0.26 0.20 75.26 1 0.64 61.34 1.74 0.07 71.3 95.4 40.14 3.26 76 3.19
Gadag 88942 0.14 0.89 0.2 0.13 92.11 0.96 0.56 90.4 2.55 0.11 86.8 85.5 44.78 5.49 158 3.87
Gulbarga (Kalaburagi) 65493 0.32 0.85 0.36 0.08 52.24 0.96 0.46 40.54 3.29 0.12 71.25 94.9 40.66 2.97 163 3.38
Hassan 115946 0.32 0.85 0.36 0.31 154.51 0.96 0.46 63.38 1.33 0.12 71.25 91.1 53.33 10.68 112 2.85
Haveri 84629 0.2 0.33 0.32 0.22 108.95 0.94 0.45 56.83 1.64 0.08 88.8 95.1 48.11 3.29 87 1.99
Kodagu 96939 0.06 0.87 0.23 5.89 8.2 0.85 0.44 33.54 3.1 0.82 95 81.6 46.43 4.87 58 5.01
Kolar 98953 0.29 0.84 0.36 0.25 7.82 0.85 0.35 211.29 1.49 0.01 88.35 67.3 55.26 3.47 185 1.76
Koppal 74134 0.29 0.84 0.36 0.02 89.95 0.85 0.35 56.6 1.89 0.01 88.35 92.6 53.2 4.77 44 1.34
Mandya 129304 0.15 0.79 0.2 0.16 122.57 0.96 0.44 59.28 0.84 0.09 71.3 95.5 41.82 8.24 97 2.96
Mysore (Mysuru) 100939 0.26 0.91 0.31 0.35 111.88 0.82 0.57 51.28 2.26 0.02 74.1 95.6 44.44 3.93 407 3.4
Raichur 78057 0.39 0.85 0.34 0.55 12.45 0.89 0.7 43.91 3.51 0.08 77.6 83.5 68.49 1.45 131 2.15

147
Ramanagara 126441 0.21 0.88 0.27 0.61 106.73 0.98 0.57 96.56 1.14 0.06 77.7 93.1 65.41 5.8 56 2.29
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
 Appendix_Table 17: Actual values of Indicators for Kerala

148
in India Using a Common Framework

District
Percentage of BPL households
Percentage of marginal land-
moldings
Women’s participation in labour
force
Proportion of income generated
from tertiary sector
Forest area per 1000 population
Proportion of value of horticulture
in total value of agriculture
Proportion of net irrigated area
Yield variability of food grains
Groundwater availability
Percentage of population in multi-
hazard areas
Road density
Rural bank per 1000 rural
population
Average man days her household
employed under MGNERGA
Percentage of area under crop
insurance
Vector borne diseases per 1000
population
Water borne diseases per 1000
Population
Doctors per 1000 Population

Thiruvananthapuram 19.31 99.83 29.84 65.87 0.39 0.12 5.85 6.74 269.70 25.23 13.87 0.19 54.98 0.04 0.50 14.34 8.92

Kollam 22.81 99.82 29.35 63.45 0.50 0.14 4.19 7.18 332.94 47.32 10.87 0.13 46.63 0.06 0.29 8.04 5.35
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

Pathanamthitta 17.55 99.28 28.24 55.20 1.63 0.08 6.67 14.40 255.83 32.97 6.81 0.25 57.57 0.09 0.22 13.44 9.17

Alappuzha 24.45 99.43 33.28 61.18 0.04 0.12 42.83 7.81 404.57 79.46 10.35 0.14 61.85 8.22 0.18 9.53 5.64

Kottayam 19.67 98.13 27.92 65.75 0.56 0.05 10.07 6.26 374.54 49.78 9.68 0.19 51.69 0.54 0.11 9.08 8.69

Idukki 21.70 97.31 35.76 53.25 2.84 0.12 21.78 6.15 186.14 59.85 5.42 0.17 51.84 0.59 0.11 11.68 5.91

Ernakulam 12.48 99.20 26.90 67.37 0.42 0.09 16.15 5.97 499.53 65.67 7.63 0.20 52.87 0.30 0.15 13.52 12.15

Thrissur 22.68 99.56 27.95 66.89 0.37 0.13 48.62 8.58 590.48 48.30 6.48 0.14 54.52 1.97 0.07 16.14 8.00

Palakkad 15.46 98.10 28.42 60.49 0.74 0.10 35.93 8.30 591.44 61.09 5.32 0.12 43.98 7.86 0.05 17.51 4.65

Malappuram 17.94 99.35 15.46 65.02 0.48 0.12 15.05 12.75 470.53 57.38 6.85 0.09 48.78 0.07 0.11 20.98 5.30

Kozhikode 18.77 99.55 20.72 60.37 0.47 0.15 3.35 8.69 306.12 50.42 11.77 0.13 48.10 0.01 0.17 22.06 8.11

Wayand 16.90 96.53 32.77 59.54 1.93 0.09 11.21 3.94 231.63 71.37 4.36 0.22 55.15 0.24 0.31 27.16 6.07

Kannur 16.19 99.07 26.06 58.35 0.66 0.24 7.64 4.45 412.55 55.54 6.78 0.13 42.28 0.02 0.11 21.99 5.61

Kasaragod 17.51 98.15 29.78 54.91 0.74 0.11 39.13 3.33 285.75 23.91 7.46 0.16 52.51 0.23 0.24 26.53 4.33
 Appendix_Table 18: Actual values of Indicators for Madhya Pradesh

District
% BPL Households
% of agricultural labourers
Total Number of Livestock per
1,000 population
% of marginal, small farmers
% of Female Workforce
participation
Forest area / 1,000 rural
population
Value of Agricultural Output /
Value of Horticulture output
% of net irrigated area to net
sown area
Variability in food grain crop
(tons/ha)
Groundwater availability
Total length of roads per 100
sq. km.
% of households availing
banking services
Average person days /
household employed under
MGNREGA
Share of area insured under
NIAS in MP during 2015
IMR
Cases of water borne diseases
(Diarrhoea/Dysentery) /
1,00,000 population
Cases of vector borne diseases
/ 1,000 population
No of Doctors / 1,000
population

Alirajpur 42.8 20.09 1125 0.67 49 1.02 0.000286 20.87 0.54 20.2 2.29 36.1 45.72 0.7 66 877 0.1 0.02

Anuppur 50.2 37.63 610 0.7 40 1.6 0.000277 2.9 0.53 93.4 6.34 69.7 47.42 0.2 73 496 0.38 0.03
Ashoknagar 14.4 38.82 509 0.62 26 1 0.000106 61.26 0.52 37.4 3.01 30.4 51.11 1.7 77 964 0.22 0.05
Balaghat 64 51.49 581 0.86 45 3.39 0.000126 57.39 0.8 15.7 10.24 38.5 40.5 2.3 62 336 0.08 0.04
Barwani 38 40.86 640 0.62 44 0.79 0.000373 55.9 0.75 6.4 3.24 38.3 40.93 1.4 67 511 0.03 0.05
Betul 77.2 45.51 549 0.61 42 2.89 0.000229 44.47 0.65 15.6 3.01 62 40.33 1.7 64 1074 0.05 0.03
Bhind 40.8 30.39 387 0.74 12 0.08 0.000085 62.9 0.35 13.5 8.26 34.4 57.43 0.3 53 486 0.16 0.03
Bhopal 8.5 12.13 107 0.63 26 0.73 0.000256 69.07 0.42 16.5 54.61 61.9 52.5 1.5 49 555 0.74 0.21
Burhanpur 28.1 47.6 399 0.66 35 2.6 0.00375 59.85 0.85 16.5 7.11 42.5 42.77 0.1 68 393 0.02 0.06
Chhatarpur 10.5 31.71 582 0.72 36 1.29 0.000409 45.92 0.75 21.2 3.93 42.1 54.93 1.2 68 1155 0.04 0.05
Chhindwara 62.6 44.12 524 0.7 39 2.9 0.000471 44.16 0.61 12.2 6.86 55.4 45.91 1.8 70 395 0.24 0.05
Damoh 22.2 43.54 538 0.75 36 2.55 0.000199 43.72 0.71 34.5 2.23 30.5 50.43 1.7 77 1536 0.07 0.02
Datia 29.6 29.19 653 0.75 30 0.33 0.000159 93.64 0.49 31.3 12.65 41.8 53.19 0.3 73 613 0.37 0.03
Dewas 3.8 41.82 496 0.61 39 1.76 0.000302 76.98 0.5 15.9 7.02 47.2 53.66 6.4 57 114 0.03 0.05
Dhar 5.6 42.55 657 0.65 42 0.37 0.000217 80.27 0.56 7 4.32 42.7 47.27 3 54 182 0.12 0.04
Dindori 74.5 48.97 736 0.68 48 4.51 0.000011 1.72 0.59 66.5 0.61 69.1 47.46 0.3 70 699 0.1 0.04
Guna 14.7 34.11 580 0.61 35 1.43 0.000088 41.16 0.71 25.7 5.37 34 49.96 1.9 77 964 0.21 0.06
Gwalior 25 17.56 255 0.73 20 1.61 0.000157 87.08 0.5 11.1 22.67 55.1 59.2 0.5 49 647 0.23 0.03
Harda 34.5 43.84 492 0.45 32 2.12 0.000079 97.22 0.57 72.4 2.27 45.1 47.03 2.6 65 474 0.03 0.05
Hoshangabad 36.6 38.06 376 0.62 28 2.85 0.000067 68.61 0.79 18 6.52 49.9 44.12 4.6 63 876 0.09 0.02
Indore 11.2 14.63 150 0.69 26 0.8 0.001027 77.13 0.84 7.2 48.89 61.8 55.25 2.9 39 361 0.1 0.14
Jabalpur 38.7 28.2 188 0.78 30 1.09 0.000478 21.36 1.12 21.8 11.62 57.6 40.13 0.4 51 951 0.17 0.17
Jhabua 23.1 22.45 848 0.79 48 0.24 0.000426 63.93 0.8 22.6 2.48 42.4 44.34 0.6 66 877 0.3 0.03

149
Katni 42.8 41.17 431 0.83 36 1.32 0.000657 57.65 0.95 21.3 7.76 50.4 44.05 0.7 68 792 0.18 0.06
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

(Cont.)
 Appendix_Table 18: Actual values of Indicators for Madhya Pradesh

150
District
% BPL Households
% of agricultural labourers
Total Number of Livestock per
1,000 population
% of marginal, small farmers
% of Female Workforce
participation
Forest area / 1,000 rural
population
Value of Agricultural Output /
Value of Horticulture output
% of net irrigated area to net
sown area
Variability in food grain crop
(tons/ha)
Groundwater availability
Total length of roads per 100
sq. km.
% of households availing
banking services
Average person days /
household employed under
MGNREGA
Share of area insured under
NIAS in MP during 2015
IMR
Cases of water borne diseases
(Diarrhoea/Dysentery) /
1,00,000 population
Cases of vector borne diseases /
1,000 population
No of Doctors / 1,000
population
in India Using a Common Framework

Khandwa 41.2 50.02 506 0.62 40 1.99 0.000725 81.04 0.89 12.6 6.83 49.3 38.07 1.2 68 393 0.04 0.06
Khargone 29.8 47.61 617 0.66 42 0.83 0.000268 46.8 0.05 5.3 2.56 36.6 46.06 1 56 359 0.04 0.04
Mandla 67.6 56.98 578 0.76 46 2.79 0.00006 22.15 0.59 31.9 4.37 77.5 44.76 0.6 70 1915 0.17 0.06
Mandsaur 21.5 39.19 490 0.74 41 0.23 0.000426 68.17 0.73 19.1 8.75 39 55.4 4.1 62 529 0.05 0.05
Morena 26.8 21.93 437 0.83 22 0.49 0.000132 80.51 0.48 10.2 7.97 35.5 54.69 0.3 60 696 0.24 0.03
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

Narsimhpur 16.2 53.97 398 0.68 32 1.51 0.000172 90.88 1.05 42.1 3.5 39.5 43.72 1.8 67 630 0.09 0.04
Neemuch 20.1 32.56 617 0.76 41 1.37 0.000436 67.24 0.74 34.5 8.95 42.2 50.91 1.8 56 268 0.19 0.04
Panna 38.8 46.03 677 0.76 36 3.08 0.000115 41.69 0.67 32.5 1.86 44.5 45.21 0.7 90 1256 0.31 0.04
Raisen 24.3 52.4 485 0.61 28 2.6 0.000112 93.4 0.83 31.4 5.12 35.2 47.82 5 74 1294 0.2 0.02
Rajgarh 20.2 44.37 528 0.7 42 0.14 0.000236 79.44 0.99 18.5 5.21 36.2 49.25 5.6 61 384 0.11 0.04
Ratlam 38.2 44.28 481 0.71 40 0.06 0.000519 59.92 0.95 13.1 3.18 46 49.17 1.9 66 292 0.19 0.05
Rewa 52.7 46.73 465 0.8 38 0.4 0.000132 34.01 0.7 11.9 6.52 42.6 45.5 1.5 70 1067 0.3 0.1
Sagar 25.5 37.63 426 0.74 32 1.67 0.00065 61.84 0.73 17.1 6.94 38.6 47.13 4.1 70 2019 0.13 0.03
Satna 61.8 40.77 449 0.8 35 1 0.000249 51.04 0.74 12.5 7.07 53.5 44.8 1.3 87 687 0.35 0.01
Sehore 24.9 38.74 523 0.6 38 1.28 0.000148 81.72 0.99 27.7 2.91 52.4 50.07 6.5 67 481 0.11 0.03
Seoni 38.6 54.91 493 0.72 42 2.53 0.000117 48.86 0.41 20.3 2.9 53.6 40.27 2.4 70 1072 0.07 0.05
Shahdol 70.4 52.53 648 0.75 41 2.33 0.000506 15.98 0.94 48.2 4.23 62.2 42.45 0.3 73 496 0.16 0.06
Shajapur 5 42.23 551 0.69 40 0.05 0.000882 65.5 0.84 17.1 4.91 38.6 53.09 6.6 60 200 0.03 0.03
Sheopur 47.2 41.54 864 0.72 34 5.96 0.000157 85.3 0.53 41.1 2.99 52.4 50.07 6.5 71 1499 4.25 0.06
Shivpuri 12.7 29.03 589 0.71 37 1.78 0.000336 56.83 0.53 16.8 2.93 37.2 51.62 1.3 70 438 0.21 0.02
Sidhi 45.8 56.75 740 0.77 38 1.91 0.000374 30.7 0.72 36.8 3.28 37.5 44.9 0.1 71 945 0.48 0.05
Singrauli 45.1 45.75 643 0.76 39 2.29 0.000289 18.01 0.94 38.3 5.8 48 40.43 0.1 71 945 0.72 0.04
Tikamgarh 10 34.16 624 0.71 39 0.32 0.000605 48.86 0.92 24.5 8.47 37.3 63.42 0.4 65 1410 0.12 0.01
Ujjain 7.8 33.65 392 0.63 37 0.03 0.000293 74.79 0.93 11.1 8.63 48 52.3 6 56 500 0.01 0.05
Umaria 68.8 50.29 661 0.75 39 3.79 0.000041 34.46 0.93 77.9 4.77 61.6 41.34 0.2 64 451 0.48 0.03
Vidisha 22.9 41.48 340 0.56 27 0.7 0.000143 79.07 0.9 24.7 3.97 37.4 49.39 5.8 68 649 0.15 0.06
 Appendix_Table 19: Actual values of Indicators for Maharashtra

Districts
Livestock to
human ratio
% of marginal
and small
operational
holders
% area covered
under centrally
funded crop
insurance
(PMFBY, WBCIS)
Proportion
of rainfed
agriculture
Forest area
per 100 rural
population
% Womens
participation in
workforce
Average
person days
per household
employed under
MGNREGA
Road Density
Health
infrastructure
per thousand
population
IMR
% HH With
improved
drinking water
source
% HH using
improved
sanitation facility
% of Female
literacy rate

Ahmednagar 0.27 0.78 0.44 0.71 0.01 0.41 37.65 0.08 0.15 42.00 86.10 50.80 80.30
Akola 0.11 0.74 0.52 0.94 0.03 0.32 31.37 0.29 0.12 53.00 97.40 46.50 84.50
Amravati 0.15 0.75 0.35 0.91 0.17 0.32 73.59 0.09 0.15 44.00 95.80 64.50 85.30
Aurangabad 0.13 0.83 0.86 0.75 0.03 0.36 42.95 0.14 0.10 47.00 88.40 45.30 78.30
Bhandara 0.19 0.91 0.43 0.40 0.10 0.42 32.91 0.11 0.20 52.00 85.90 67.30 90.60
Beed 0.22 0.81 0.87 0.84 0.01 0.42 65.13 0.09 0.14 41.00 86.10 39.70 67.00
Buldhana 0.17 0.75 0.27 0.94 0.03 0.40 34.83 0.10 0.14 51.00 86.80 45.70 77.70
Chandrapur 0.14 0.50 0.18 0.76 0.28 0.39 37.37 0.12 0.19 55.00 84.00 53.90 80.50
Dhule 0.19 0.71 0.18 0.80 0.02 0.39 38.72 0.07 0.14 54.00 93.80 32.00 60.90
Gadchiroli 0.33 0.73 0.20 0.62 1.04 0.45 30.40 0.02 0.41 62.00 86.10 32.60 72.60
Gondia 0.21 0.92 0.22 0.46 0.18 0.42 41.70 0.05 0.23 66.00 78.80 55.40 83.50
Hingoli 0.19 0.72 0.43 0.77 0.01 0.42 45.20 0.04 0.14 50.00 86.00 40.30 69.00
Jalgaon 0.15 0.72 0.21 0.75 0.04 0.36 31.36 0.13 0.13 51.00 96.00 42.10 72.60
Jalna 0.19 0.78 1.30 0.78 0.00 0.41 34.49 0.07 0.14 49.00 72.60 34.00 65.70
Kolhapur 0.19 0.93 0.00 0.69 0.07 0.34 25.14 0.22 0.14 37.00 95.40 67.00 84.30
Latur 0.15 0.74 1.17 0.40 0.00 0.36 39.81 0.14 0.13 54.00 93.00 39.70 77.10
Mumbai suburban 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 2.27 0.00 43.00 99.20 26.70 82.00
Nagpur 0.07 0.68 0.13 0.73 0.14 0.29 49.32 0.42 0.09 48.00 95.40 71.10 89.60
Nanded 0.15 0.79 0.96 0.84 0.04 0.38 48.14 0.10 0.14 47.00 88.30 43.80 75.30
Nandurbar 0.18 0.65 0.08 0.78 0.09 0.44 28.75 0.06 0.22 55.00 83.70 23.60 46.10
Nashik 0.14 0.77 0.21 0.74 0.03 0.37 34.32 0.04 0.12 48.00 89.70 52.80 82.20
Osmanabad 0.24 0.68 1.43 0.79 0.00 0.39 45.60 0.06 0.16 43.00 89.00 27.30 78.20
Parbhani 0.15 0.74 0.99 0.75 0.00 0.39 35.05 0.24 0.14 46.00 89.90 34.00 70.70
Pune 0.09 0.81 0.04 0.70 0.05 0.31 42.50 0.22 0.08 38.00 95.30 63.50 87.60
Raigad 0.06 0.87 0.03 0.93 0.18 0.30 35.02 0.08 0.14 47.00 93.60 75.40 84.90
Ratnagiri 0.12 0.83 0.06 0.97 0.31 0.43 35.24 0.05 0.28 27.00 85.00 67.80 85.10
Sangli 0.24 0.83 0.24 0.69 0.01 0.34 39.50 0.08 0.14 40.00 95.80 68.80 85.60
Satara 0.18 0.93 0.09 0.84 0.05 0.38 33.84 0.08 0.16 40.00 93.00 63.80 85.40
Sindhudurg 0.13 0.88 0.08 0.90 0.38 0.34 33.08 0.05 0.35 45.00 75.10 77.60 91.00
Solapur 0.14 0.67 0.43 0.73 0.00 0.36 37.29 0.13 0.13 42.00 86.90 49.30 76.40
Thane 0.03 0.81 0.09 0.97 0.12 0.25 76.68 0.52 0.06 50.00 92.00 64.70 78.40
Palghar 0.03 0.81 0.09 0.97 0.12 0.25 76.68 0.52 0.06 50.00 92.00 64.70 78.40
Wardha 0.17 0.61 0.15 0.89 0.10 0.35 61.08 0.10 0.17 39.00 93.70 56.90 82.90
Washim

151
0.14 0.70 0.54 0.99 0.03 0.40 38.61 0.06 0.08 48.00 88.10 41.50 77.00
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

Yavatmal 0.17 0.60 0.46 0.96 0.12 0.40 44.37 0.05 0.22 56.00 80.80 43.70 75.80
 Appendix_Table 20: Actual values of Indicators for Manipur

152
Districts
% crop area
covered
under crop
insurance
Total
Number of
Livestock per
1000 rural
households
Average
person days
provided per
household
(MGNREGA)
% net area
under
agriculture
to GA
% of landless,
marginal and
small farmers
(land <5 acre)
% of net un-
irrigated area
to net sown
area
Variability in
food grain
crop yield
(ton/ha)

Senapati 0.00 0.16 20.14 0.77 83.58 66.27 0.10

Tamenglong 0.00 0.30 19.74 1.51 35.65 86.28 0.18

Churachandpur 0.05 0.16 20.39 0.79 92.20 96.00 0.12
Chandel 0.08 0.27 20.98 1.27 65.36 34.00 0.11
in India Using a Common Framework

Ukhrul 0.00 0.25 19.58 1.29 97.56 70.46 0.14

Imphal East 0.55 0.13 20.62 0.62 90.16 34.42 0.09
Imphal West 0.19 0.12 22.14 0.56 86.50 46.71 0.10
Bishnupur 8.37 0.15 21.37 0.71 84.55 28.39 0.11
Thoubal 0.65 0.20 24.18 0.81 86.42 41.21 0.12
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

Appendix_Table 21: Actual values of indicators for Meghalaya (Block-level integrated vulnerability assessment)

Monthly income of
% of Rural HHs with No
Households having kisan
Anganwadi Centres per

Districts
highest earning household
member is < 5000 (%)
Livestock Ratio per 1000
Rural household
Land ownership
% Total Female Workforce
Forests Area per '000 Rural
Pop
Value of Output of Horti/
Value of Output of Agri
% Net Irrigated by Net
Sown
Variability in Food grain
Yield
Drainage Density (kms)
Road Density per Sq kms
Total Rural Banks/ 1000
Rural population
Avg Persondays/HH
employed under NREGS
over last 5 years
NRM works per 1000 ha
credit card with the credit
limit of Rs.50,000 and
above (%)
1000 ha

Mylliem 45.54 0.07 94.83 50.04 1.21 7.45 10.94 0.559 0.89 2.41 0.15 68.16 9.77 0.25 151.59
Mawphlang 85.22 0.31 76.38 48.1 2.32 7.45 27.19 0.292 0.79 1.68 0.06 52.03 1.09 0.36 64.25
Mawsynram 83.1 0.29 78.5 49.6 5.85 7.45 30.82 0.291 0.76 1.05 0.07 59.53 2.3 0.08 31.225
Shella Bholaganj 69.68 0.12 84.11 48.99 4.51 7.45 11.6 0.37 0.75 1.31 0.07 64.91 1.92 0.08 37.065
Pynursla 89.29 0.16 83.82 49.89 4.62 7.45 8.49 0.409 0.72 0.97 0.03 81.78 1.4 1.54 31.982
Khatarshnong Laitkroh 87.92 0.14 90.43 49.44 1.98 7.45 14.36 0.273 0.73 1.36 0.02 79.3 6.8 0.18 21.117
Mawkynrew 92.18 0.24 88 49.35 3.69 7.45 27.85 0.391 0.95 1.1 0.07 58.99 0.93 0.34 24.381
Mawryngkneng 81.67 0.18 90.17 49.24 1.9 7.45 15.75 0.352 0.95 1.85 0.09 49.29 0.88 0.11 38.67
Mairang 77.83 0.27 79.97 48.68 7.86 2.06 22.26 0.225 0.9 1.4 0.07 47.08 0.54 0.26 19.712
Mawthadraishan 71.95 0.48 68.76 48.47 4.04 2.06 15.73 0.304 0.77 1.7 0.06 50.55 4.69 0.25 27.035
Nongstoin 81.48 0.55 65.21 49.39 12.36 2.06 38.1 0.217 0.76 1.05 0.06 56.36 2.5 0.61 13.693

(Cont.)
 Appendix_Table 21: Actual values of indicators for Meghalaya (Block-level integrated vulnerability assessment)

Monthly income of
% of Rural HHs with No
Households having kisan
Anganwadi Centres per

Districts
highest earning household
member is < 5000 (%)
Livestock Ratio per 1000
Rural household
Land ownership
% Total Female Workforce
Forests Area per '000 Rural
Pop
Value of Output of Horti/
Value of Output of Agri
% Net Irrigated by Net
Sown
Variability in Food grain
Yield
Drainage Density (kms)
Road Density per Sq kms
Total Rural Banks/ 1000
Rural population
Avg Persondays/HH
employed under NREGS
over last 5 years
NRM works per 1000 ha
credit card with the credit
limit of Rs.50,000 and
above (%)
1000 ha

Mawshynrut 75.84 0.33 80.4 50.18 16.15 2.06 8.45 0.263 0.82 0.87 0.05 63.73 0.79 0.26 10.027
Mawkyrwat 83.07 0.3 58.16 50.34 7.87 4.76 4.57 0.375 0.74 1.11 0.06 68.12 1.76 0.47 19.214
Ranikor 74.21 0.31 67.24 49.95 11.36 4.76 13.6 0.522 0.74 0.94 0.02 43.54 1.15 0.14 17.021
Umsning 74.87 0.15 79.2 49.6 5.21 2.16 41.95 0.179 1.01 1.48 0.06 43.97 1.18 1.13 28.187
Umling 72.57 0.17 57.45 50.41 7.76 2.16 19.26 0.328 0.8 1.13 0.14 58.64 4.39 0.22 23.129
Jirang 85.17 0.39 55.16 49.83 17.27 2.16 10.38 0.33 0.65 0.66 0.06 54.08 1.67 0.37 11.152
Thadlaskein 75.19 0.16 81.85 50.58 5.19 2.29 10.33 0.332 1.09 1.48 0.05 37.01 1.18 0.22 25.849
Laskein 63.95 0.12 93.07 50.37 4.03 2.29 19.22 0.211 1.11 1.07 0.04 50.95 3.66 0.26 24.949
Amlarem 65.16 0.21 88.96 48.88 7.05 2.29 67.61 0.347 1.13 0.95 0.09 59.09 4.4 0.27 19.93
Khliehriat 43.33 0.29 91.86 49.84 23.52 0.37 7.55 0.355 1.08 1.24 0.14 40.07 0.48 0.7 16.381
Saipung 58.19 0.93 88.54 49.77 25.32 0.37 0.72 0.279 1 0.73 0.03 44.36 1.26 0.26 6.7221
Dambo Rongjeng 91.61 0.43 84.79 50.23 7.43 2.08 10.8 0.276 0.89 1.31 0.08 73.97 14.65 0.35 24.091
Songsak 85.41 0.52 74.86 49.56 8.35 2.08 2.68 0.272 0.96 1.45 0.04 82.08 5.49 1.93 23.435
Samanda 91.12 0.44 71.97 50.74 12.95 2.08 4.96 0.271 0.92 1.12 0.06 80.68 6.96 0.21 23.375
Rongram 84.95 0.49 83.89 48.42 7.51 1.43 3.16 0.259 0.82 1.51 0.05 66.3 2.17 0.35 40.347
Dadenggre 92.26 0.7 88.46 49.31 9.93 1.43 4.37 0.406 0.83 2.14 0.02 67.61 1.99 2.48 21.657
Selsella 81.45 0.44 69.21 48.37 1.44 1.43 13.36 0.165 0.62 2.55 0.05 55.18 6.9 0.65 59.968
Tikrikilla 77.39 0.57 29.27 49.27 3.39 1.43 9.22 0.416 0.71 1.76 0.02 76.37 6.39 0.48 44.57
Gambegre 88.79 0.77 33.67 49.86 5.18 1.43 1.64 0.288 1.98 1.23 0.06 83.36 3.07 0.27 33.127
Dalu 82.44 0.63 80.51 48.9 4.41 1.43 6.23 0.421 0.83 1.2 0.02 71.09 17.51 0.2 36.866
Resubelpara 82.86 0.44 58.23 49.57 5.16 1.41 26.15 0.222 0.65 1.45 0.04 77.96 2.83 1.2 36.748
Kharkutta 81.5 0.52 76.21 49.57 6.2 1.41 12.59 0.164 0.77 0.86 0.06 62.35 1.23 0.86 35.815
Betasing 84.51 0.76 48.38 49.42 2.31 0.92 24.99 0.243 0.69 2.39 0.07 62.63 12.18 0.49 70.094
Zikzak 82.26 0.79 54.71 50.48 3.53 0.92 9.44 0.22 0.64 1.6 0.04 55.43 9.01 16.39 47.119
Baghmara 69.4 0.5 69.11 49.87 11.06 2.75 10.24 0.295 0.83 1.2 0.05 80.8 4.76 0.2 22.852
Gasuapara 83.47 0.4 64.41 49.32 10.06 2.75 1.69 0.31 0.75 1.08 0.04 75.95 0.83 1.25 18.995
Ronggara 79.83 0.48 65.89 48.47 22.38 2.75 13.45 0.353 0.77 0.66 0 79.45 3.88 0.32 11.989

153
Chokpot 76.45 0.68 82.39 49.24 12.68 2.75 12.12 0.282 0.91 1.11 0.02 79.07 2.03 0.1 15.223
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
 Appendix_Table 22: Actual values of indicators for Meghalaya (Sectoral vulnerability assessment)

154
District
% of Net Irrigated Area
to Net Sown Area
Variability in Foodgrain
Crop Yield
Drainage Density
% of Rural HHs with No
Land ownership
% of Agricultural Area
under slopes >45 degree
% Share of Total Crop
Produced (2018-19)
Value of Output of Total
horticulture/ Value of
agricultural output
Livestock to Human
Ratio
% Rural HHs having
Kisan Credit Card(KCC)
with limit Rs. 50,000 &
above
Road Density
No. of Main & Local
Markets / Geographical
Area
Diversity Index of Main
Income Source for Rural
HHs
Average person days/
HH employed under
MGNREGA over last
5 years (2016-17 to
2020-21)
No. of NRM works/
1000 ha

East Garo Hills 5.84 0.261 0.92 77.7 4.7 7.63 2.08 0.47 0.97 1.3 0.01 0.52 79.46 8.46
East Jaintia Hills 4.14 0.291 1.03 90.82 10.46 1.01 0.37 0.16 0.56 0.97 0.01 0.65 41.41 0.79
in India Using a Common Framework

East Khasi Hills 17.22 0.28 0.81 88.42 27.93 22.97 7.45 0.15 0.34 1.41 0.01 0.65 62.62 1.95
North Garo Hills 20.06 0.317 0.7 64.84 12.83 6.09 1.41 0.47 1.07 1.22 0.02 0.62 78.08 4.79
Ri Bhoi 27.6 0.23 0.85 69.44 14.84 10.31 2.16 0.18 0.75 1.15 0.01 0.64 51 2.06
South Garo Hills 9.18 0.3 0.82 71.6 9.26 5.32 2.75 0.53 0.43 1 0.01 0.6 78.86 2.97
South West Garo Hills 16.5 0.262 0.66 51.68 0.06 9.04 0.92 0.78 8.78 1.96 0.04 0.68 58.2 10.43
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

South West Khasi Hills 9.42 0.479 0.74 62.06 19.7 4.6 4.76 0.3 0.33 1.04 0 0.54 56.75 1.44
West garo Hills 6.98 0.18 0.88 66.23 2.72 21.18 1.43 0.54 0.67 1.8 0.01 0.65 66.71 6.49
West Jaintia Hills 22.51 0.177 1.1 87.38 8.31 5.06 2.29 0.48 0.25 1.23 0.01 0.59 48.47 2.52
West Khasi Hills 20.78 0.183 0.82 74.72 11.05 6.8 2.06 0.39 0.33 1.12 0.01 0.59 55.19 1.61

Appendix_Table 23: Actual values of indicators for Mizoram (Sectoral vulnerability assessment)

Districts
% of rainfed
agriculture
Variability in food
grain crop yield
Water Scarcity
Drainage density
% of landless,
marginal and small
farmers (land <5 acre)
Soil fertility
Groundwater
availability
Crop Diversification
(Shannon-Weiner
Index)
Value of Output of
Total horticulture /
Value of agricultural
output
Total Number of
Livestock per 1000
rural households
Road connectivity
Access to market
Income diversification
within agriculture
sector
Average person days/
household employed
under MGNREGA
Number of NRM
works per 1,000 ha
(MGNREGS)

Aizawl 88.03 21.25 0.99999977 5.08 92.76 46.06 0.39 2.38 4.77 263.35 0.33 90.38 0.93 86.23 0.51
Champhai 89.02 7.61 0.9999998 5.14 90.86 40.00 0.43 1.92 2.27 236.32 0.31 91.11 0.74 85.14 0.42
Kolasib 73.69 7.73 0.99999976 5.48 61.33 52.57 1.29 2.06 4.41 258.24 0.35 69.39 1.04 80.36 0.62
Lawngtlai 94.96 34.04 0.99999981 6.36 95.93 49.54 1.40 1.83 2.73 91.43 0.24 94.64 0.96 87.89 0.43
Lunglei 94.82 28.46 0.9999998 6.73 90.76 46.42 1.14 2.20 3.19 82.85 0.21 98.97 0.96 85.09 0.70
Mamit 93.80 21.06 0.99999978 5.78 72.79 59.84 1.40 2.15 3.81 110.66 0.24 69.92 0.72 81.11 0.24
Serchhip 85.96 23.65 0.99999979 6.29 83.03 40.31 0.53 2.32 2.55 156.32 0.35 85.25 0.70 80.25 0.73
Siaha 91.00 36.43 0.99999981 5.68 86.29 40.00 0.63 2.17 11.30 256.61 0.20 87.50 0.70 81.28 0.55
 Appendix_Table 24: Actual values of indicators for Nagaland

Districts
% of net irrigated
area to net sown
area
Variability in food
grain crop yield
Water Scarcity
% Rural household
with no Land
Drainage density
Crop diversification
No of Livestock /
1000 RHH
Road connectivity
Percentage of
villages connected
by paved roads
Access to market
Average person
days under
MGNREGA
Number of NRM
works per 1,000 ha

Mon 12.16 11.28 0.00 40.17 3.77 0.37 0.28 35.90 0.24 51.18 0.24

Mokokchung 21.76 10.89 0.00 40.27 3.83 0.27 0.14 64.08 0.51 54.09 0.12

Zunheboto 14.47 12.95 0.00 43.31 3.88 0.35 0.49 71.67 0.37 48.00 0.11

Wokha 29.20 12.30 0.00 36.80 3.53 0.33 0.23 20.42 0.33 42.88 0.33

Dimapur 63.28 11.15 0.00 72.98 2.96 0.49 0.35 35.48 0.22 42.70 0.48

Phek 41.02 11.39 0.09 13.12 3.77 0.35 0.30 40.78 0.31 43.06 0.14

Tuensang 17.39 12.00 0.00 28.39 3.87 0.34 0.36 33.06 0.32 45.18 0.10

Longleng 16.69 12.29 0.00 44.32 3.91 0.30 0.36 93.48 0.38 54.25 0.20

Kiphire 13.62 11.74 0.03 28.11 4.00 0.37 0.45 28.40 0.26 53.37 0.06

Kohima 34.30 12.37 0.18 46.32 3.99 0.33 0.21 65.31 0.31 35.42 0.19

Peren 41.02 11.64 0.09 70.58 3.65 0.33 0.41 15.15 0.32 59.32 0.17

155
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
 Appendix_Table 25: Actual values of indicators for Orissa

156
Districts
% area covered under
centrally funded crop
insurance (PMFBY,
WBCIS)
Proportion of rainfed
agriculture
Forest area per 100
rural population
Average person
days per household
employed under
MGNREGA
Health infrastructure
per thousand
population
IMR
% HH With improved
drinking water source
% of Female literacy
rate
Yield variability of
foodgrains

Angul 0.66 0.90 0.26 44.48 0.16 68.00 77.20 70.60 0.38
Balangir 1.22 0.96 0.08 49.79 0.18 69.00 94.00 61.90 0.47
in India Using a Common Framework

Balasore 0.35 0.62 0.02 41.46 0.16 55.00 97.70 75.80 0.13
Bargarh 1.04 0.62 0.08 41.40 0.18 53.00 95.60 69.20 0.16
Boudh 0.46 0.56 0.31 43.04 0.19 75.00 88.80 64.30 0.29
Bhadrak 0.42 0.53 0.01 37.32 0.16 56.00 99.40 76.80 0.07
Cuttack 0.26 0.44 0.04 38.12 0.16 59.00 91.10 83.60 0.22
Deogarh 0.36 0.91 0.51 41.33 0.18 70.00 85.60 66.80 0.40
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

Dhenkanal 0.38 0.75 0.13 55.34 0.18 62.00 58.80 72.80 0.23
Gajapati 0.19 0.51 0.50 44.54 0.29 91.00 69.20 45.00 0.24
Ganjam 0.36 0.31 0.27 64.45 0.17 68.00 90.30 64.10 0.31
Jagatsinghpur 0.31 0.31 0.01 29.34 0.21 53.00 96.90 85.80 0.19
Jajpur 0.49 0.79 0.02 42.24 0.18 57.00 87.80 79.10 0.16
Jharsuguda 0.78 0.98 0.10 47.53 0.16 56.00 91.30 76.10 0.55
Kalahandi 0.42 0.70 0.17 42.73 0.20 83.00 93.60 46.10 0.32
Kandhamal 0.19 0.96 0.82 49.34 0.31 101.00 61.40 55.90 0.10
Kendrapara 0.67 0.68 0.02 39.62 0.20 61.00 98.80 81.10 0.13
Keonjhar 0.27 0.82 0.21 43.05 0.24 60.00 85.40 66.30 0.15
Koraput 0.09 0.64 0.04 42.72 0.17 59.00 84.70 39.70 0.14
Malkangiri 0.07 0.94 0.18 53.42 0.14 88.00 89.30 34.80 0.36
Mayurbhanj 0.12 0.81 0.41 45.59 1.16 91.00 81.50 58.30 0.20
Nabrangpur 0.11 0.95 0.18 55.07 0.14 55.00 98.40 41.80 0.33
Nayagarh 0.28 0.93 0.10 50.35 0.18 84.00 80.20 75.50 0.31
Nuapada 0.68 0.86 0.19 40.06 0.12 68.00 95.00 49.90 0.29
Khurda 0.37 0.24 0.22 46.76 0.51 73.00 95.00 82.90 0.22
Puri 0.50 0.74 0.04 42.72 0.13 73.00 95.00 82.90 0.17
Rayagarh 0.17 0.72 0.38 43.75 0.30 90.00 91.70 35.30 0.17
Sambalpur 0.69 0.85 0.45 42.49 0.21 65.00 87.40 72.20 0.28
Sonepur 0.52 0.54 0.06 44.79 0.19 57.00 96.70 69.50 0.28
Sundargarh 0.58 0.91 0.32 51.61 0.23 60.00 89.30 68.60 0.42
 Appendix_Table 26: Actual values of indicators for Punjab

Districts
Per capita income / annum (in
Rs.)
Livestock to 1000 rural
population
Female workforce
Forest Area\ 1000 rural
population
Yield variability of food grains
(Rice, wheat) (ton/ha)
Road density
Rural Banks /1000 Rural
Population
Number of NRM works per
1000 ha
Average person days/ household
employed under MGNREGA
Cases of Vector Borne diseases
/1000 population
Cases of Water Borne diseases
/1000 population
No of doctors, specialists, health
assistants & health Workers per
1000 population
IMR
Water Scarcity (% Ground water
Development)
Value of output total
horticulture (perennial)/ value
of agriculture output

Ferozepur 103,552.00 365.19 74,585.00 1.67 0.07 1.57 0.06 1.84 25.03 0.32 3.65 8.80 48.00 144.00 0.00
Hoshiarpur 129,478.00 247.13 87,316.00 57.92 0.08 1.79 0.09 2.07 30.00 0.45 3.39 5.60 43.00 104.00 0.11

Sri Muktsar Sahib 110,254.00 341.99 62,627.00 2.77 0.05 1.65 0.05 3.17 26.40 0.18 3.21 4.40 61.00 69.00 0.07

Bathinda 98,955.00 436.81 116,998.00 6.30 0.06 1.47 0.06 2.25 28.28 0.59 2.89 4.90 49.00 119.00 0.03

Rupnagar 156,900.00 405.32 46,766.00 51.30 0.10 2.13 0.10 2.86 39.51 0.39 30.27 8.20 47.00 110.00 0.07
Mansa 95,316.00 519.88 97,773.00 1.65 0.06 1.23 0.06 1.92 28.72 0.48 4.49 8.50 59.00 138.00 0.01
Faridkot 118,686.00 402.02 36,506.00 5.24 0.07 1.38 0.08 2.58 28.57 0.33 7.61 12.30 51.00 159.00 0.02
Gurdaspur 76,983.00 299.02 93,602.00 1.35 0.10 2.02 0.05 2.67 32.88 0.48 6.46 9.20 43.00 126.00 0.01
Amritsar 104,170.00 388.31 182,661.00 2.34 0.09 2.17 0.08 2.40 32.65 0.42 4.73 5.80 42.00 126.00 0.02
Jalandhar 136,583.00 318.49 134,988.00 1.07 0.06 2.07 0.10 1.68 28.96 0.17 18.56 5.80 45.00 229.00 0.02
SBS Nagar 137,029.00 302.26 34,077.00 24.24 0.08 1.91 0.12 4.49 40.29 0.69 11.82 5.50 52.00 112.00 0.03
Ludhiana 142,543.00 416.47 231,222.00 3.85 0.05 2.78 0.05 2.56 36.48 0.38 9.99 7.00 43.00 170.00 0.02
Fatehgarh Sahib 137,764.00 435.87 83,629.00 0.96 0.07 2.05 0.10 6.38 52.87 0.59 5.06 4.40 44.00 169.00 0.01

Moga 131,391.00 356.87 66,793.00 1.17 0.10 1.88 0.09 2.72 28.80 0.45 3.61 5.90 63.00 207.00 0.00

Sangrur 127,528.00 505.41 32,006.00 2.02 0.06 1.71 0.08 1.84 23.79 0.26 4.95 4.60 56.00 183.00 0.01
Kapurthala 138,262.00 323.30 48,603.00 1.88 0.06 1.67 0.14 3.86 39.21 0.51 23.04 4.70 50.00 242.00 0.01
Patiala 115,290.00 358.03 110,606.00 6.62 0.05 1.69 0.07 2.68 23.45 0.06 3.35 5.00 53.00 195.00 0.02
Barnala 120,254.00 525.03 31,168.00 1.98 0.05 1.39 0.06 2.10 29.50 0.54 6.67 5.40 50.00 194.00 0.00
Fazilka 94,291.00 406.04 85,704.00 2.90 0.05 1.09 0.07 1.68 26.26 0.63 3.79 1.70 48.00 95.00 0.31
SAS Nagar 141,439.00 364.42 72,628.00 31.55 0.08 3.20 0.09 0.79 34.18 0.36 15.42 5.30 37.00 102.00 0.10
Pathankot 97,294.00 250.28 25,884.00 51.79 0.10 1.88 0.08 1.46 46.16 0.36 18.42 0.60 43.00 64.00 0.21

157
Tarn Taran 89,894.00 131.16 67,063.00 1.84 0.09 1.49 0.06 0.82 28.20 0.33 0.63 4.80 47.00 181.00 0.02
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
 Appendix_Table 27: Actual values of indicators for Rajasthan

158
Districts
Per capita income
Livestock to human
ratio
% of marginal and
small operational
holders
% area covered under
centrally funded crop
insurance (PMFBY,
WBCIS)
Forest area per 100
rural population
% Womens
participation in
workforce
Average person
days per household
employed under
MGNREGA
Number of NRM
works per 1,000 ha
(MGNREGS) and/or
other schemes
Rural Bank/1000rural
population
Road Density
% of Female literacy
rate
IMR
Yield variability of
foodgrains
Total vector borne
diseases/1000
population
Total water borne
diseases/1000
population

Ajmer 84093 0.26 0.71 0.50 0.02 0.35 61.40 81.12 0.02 0.10 59.10 72 0.26 0.19 20.49
Alwar 87778 0.29 0.82 0.55 0.04 0.42 45.01 50.12 0.03 0.19 44.10 57 0.11 0.19 36.50
in India Using a Common Framework

Banswara 40295 0.44 0.88 0.37 0.02 0.47 56.44 0.00 0.02 0.04 52.90 90 0.17 0.36 21.59
Baran 60288 0.31 0.64 0.48 0.10 0.40 58.39 54.78 0.03 0.03 37.80 68 0.19 0.84 25.19
Barmer 128226 0.36 0.18 0.61 0.01 0.42 63.57 209.74 0.01 0.01 52.50 58 0.43 0.13 6.84
Bharatpur 47878 0.28 0.77 0.37 0.01 0.40 41.97 101.07 0.02 0.12 48.50 60 0.10 0.55 45.04
Bhilwara 81252 0.36 0.72 0.62 0.01 0.41 67.93 146.92 0.03 0.10 59.80 78 0.26 0.20 25.38
Bikaner 84462 0.39 0.06 0.40 0.02 0.35 58.25 17.96 0.04 0.02 51.80 52 0.34 0.19 6.44
Bundi
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

65173 0.34 0.72 0.87 0.06 0.40 55.20 60.77 0.04 0.05 48.60 62 0.19 0.35 66.06
Chittorgarh 67678 0.40 0.71 0.75 0.08 0.43 54.71 172.33 0.03 0.06 58.10 72 0.18 0.33 7.83
Churu 52781 0.25 0.18 0.72 0.01 0.40 60.55 69.75 0.05 0.05 57.30 54 0.28 0.10 3.97
Dausa 47373 0.20 0.72 0.45 0.01 0.42 46.19 90.33 0.02 0.03 57.10 68 0.13 0.12 45.10
Dholpur 36523 0.29 0.81 0.12 0.04 0.35 55.88 67.92 0.01 0.09 53.90 66 0.11 0.14 81.37
Dungarpur 35768 0.44 0.86 0.31 0.02 0.46 68.21 0.00 0.02 0.06 69.00 67 0.18 0.43 25.59
Sri Ganganagar 103750 0.30 0.08 0.52 0.01 0.35 54.05 0.00 0.03 0.09 62.60 56 0.15 0.21 10.79
Hanumangarh 92906 0.33 0.27 0.75 0.01 0.39 61.87 0.00 0.03 0.05 68.60 94 0.28 0.07 19.66
Jaipur 89731 0.21 0.64 0.66 0.02 0.30 44.45 534.33 0.04 0.29 37.00 46 0.15 0.18 9.00
Jaisalmer 78278 0.57 0.11 0.58 0.06 0.37 75.76 13.33 0.03 0.01 41.70 56 0.68 0.14 15.54
Jalore 48931 0.37 0.29 0.74 0.02 0.45 62.32 144.36 0.03 0.02 49.90 61 0.38 0.05 15.09
Jhalawar 59191 0.32 0.67 0.74 0.04 0.41 61.32 87.31 0.03 0.03 68.70 62 0.16 0.09 28.01
Jhunjhunu 49513 0.23 0.70 0.64 0.01 0.39 62.27 59.21 0.06 0.11 55.70 50 0.21 0.06 4.03
Jodhpur 67763 0.26 0.23 0.40 0.00 0.35 60.98 58.99 0.02 0.11 49.30 56 0.30 0.09 14.14
Karauli 46131 0.32 0.79 0.22 0.07 0.41 49.79 174.69 0.02 0.05 70.60 66 0.08 0.13 22.16
Kota 75918 0.17 0.57 0.92 0.07 0.29 58.70 59.42 0.07 0.36 53.20 51 0.19 0.92 41.62
Nagaur 53761 0.26 0.33 0.44 0.01 0.40 62.57 11.63 0.02 0.04 57.80 63 0.22 0.11 12.02
Pali 72449 0.28 0.53 0.35 0.04 0.38 62.29 69.10 0.06 0.05 45.70 71 0.29 0.19 29.98
Pratapgarh 48002 0.50 0.77 0.52 0.13 0.48 58.04 207.24 0.02 0.03 59.00 74 0.18 0.44 9.11
Rajsamand 73744 0.32 0.81 0.46 0.05 0.42 64.70 84.21 0.02 0.08 44.90 75 0.17 0.52 17.52
Sawai Madhopur 53660 0.22 0.71 0.50 0.04 0.41 48.31 528.46 0.03 0.04 66.50 63 0.12 0.17 24.15
Sikar 58044 0.25 0.66 0.60 0.01 0.35 61.67 35.31 0.05 0.11 43.50 48 0.21 0.06 17.30
Sirohi 72883 0.32 0.63 0.36 0.11 0.35 62.31 36.02 0.04 0.09 52.10 70 0.31 0.17 6.32
Tonk 56744 0.32 0.58 0.63 0.01 0.43 45.91 56.71 0.03 0.04 50.50 68 0.19 0.08 35.18
Udaipur 62289 0.37 0.82 0.35 0.11 0.39 54.16 27.21 0.02 0.03 0.00 76 0.17 0.39 28.77
 Appendix_Table 28: Actual values of indicators for Sikkim

District
Livestock
to rural
population
Marginal
farmer +
small farmer
(%)
Women
work force
(%)
Unirrigated
land (%)
Forest Area
(ha)/1000
rural pop
MGNREGA
(Days)
Doctors
available
in district
towns
(Number)
Yield
variability
East 0.042 82.25 33.88 54.8 4.42 55.35 147 0.61
West 0.07 9.4 42.04 44.54 5.9 58.14 24 0.75
North 0.146 78.21 31.78 70.87 32.87 60.92 17 0.39
South 0.05 79.04 39.4 58.43 4.55 56.83 33 0.97

Appendix_Table 29: Actual values of indicators for Tamil Nadu

District
Average person days per
household employed under
MGNREGA
Livestock to human ratio
Stage of groundwater extraction
Yield variability in food grains
Women participation in labour
force
Road density
Percentage marginal and small
farmers
Proportion of rainfed agricultural
land
Doctors per thousand population
Per capita income
Forest cover per 1000 rural
Population
Agricultural land covered under
crop Insurance
Value of output of total
horticulture (only perennial) /
Value of agricultural output

Ariyalur 33.78 71.68 43.31 0.32 0.42 87.00 0.95 0.61 4466.83 16559.00 58.59 21251.00 0.02

Coimbatore 47.85 97.72 121.85 0.58 0.39 170.00 0.74 0.20 5215.75 65781.00 236.55 3247.00 3.66

Cuddalore 38.68 88.43 61.73 0.27 0.41 119.00 0.93 0.13 5665.03 47042.00 22.72 77936.00 0.23

Dharmapuri 36.14 100.25 125.90 0.20 0.42 55.00 0.93 0.40 3326.36 46828.00 136.53 16474.00 0.10

Dindigul 54.81 26.56 110.57 0.32 0.44 88.00 0.87 0.40 5280.62 47812.00 138.64 41602.00 0.68

Erode 55.78 124.62 99.04 0.19 0.43 122.00 0.81 0.24 5803.46 61631.00 209.73 15582.00 0.49

Kanchipuram 67.45 89.35 66.68 0.16 0.36 129.00 0.94 0.02 5338.12 70667.00 21.08 17759.00 0.13

Kanniyakumari 59.27 114.53 25.49 0.11 0.24 287.00 0.99 0.16 5667.80 81094.00 303.18 1855.00 21.89

Karur 61.26 134.31 102.36 0.28 0.44 96.00 0.81 0.27 6412.61 61181.00 18.80 6321.00 0.57

159
Krishnagiri 54.59 89.42 117.81 0.23 0.39 59.00 0.92 0.53 5837.92 55719.00 111.47 6495.00 0.76
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

(Cont.)
 Appendix_Table 29: Actual values of indicators for Tamil Nadu

160
in India Using a Common Framework

District
Average person days per
household employed under
MGNREGA
Livestock to human ratio
Stage of groundwater extraction
Yield variability in food grains
Women participation in labour
force
Road density
Percentage marginal and small
farmers
Proportion of rainfed agricultural
land
Doctors per thousand population
Per capita income
Forest cover per 1000 rural
Population
Agricultural land covered under
crop Insurance
Value of output of total
horticulture (only perennial) /
Value of agricultural output

Madurai 48.06 70.02 69.70 0.14 0.42 128.00 0.95 0.16 3956.06 56506.00 46.61 20760.00 1.28

Nagapattinam 48.39 87.63 135.92 0.49 0.34 95.00 0.91 0.06 4631.66 34640.00 12.71 153950.00 0.19

Namakkal 53.64 121.05 135.19 0.28 0.44 124.00 0.89 0.36 4531.76 58133.00 56.22 26216.00 0.10

Perambalur 36.00 81.67 12.78 0.55 0.48 61.00 0.93 0.72 3324.84 17922.00 30.18 67714.00 0.03
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

Pudukkottai 60.26 127.88 120.44 0.22 0.41 75.00 0.95 0.06 5041.57 37390.00 28.02 85222.00 0.35

Ramanathapuram 53.07 35.66 46.82 0.57 0.39 76.00 0.94 0.43 4101.35 37707.00 27.25 137030.00 0.25

Salem 51.03 136.79 12.90 0.21 0.42 117.00 0.92 0.41 3890.57 48802.00 86.06 31473.00 0.08

Sivagangai 56.10 109.30 145.76 0.41 0.41 85.00 0.95 0.04 2457.07 41912.00 35.60 89731.00 0.22

Thanjavur 50.79 101.84 18.17 0.24 0.34 129.00 0.93 0.03 3912.02 40366.00 22.26 98192.00 0.38

The Nilgiris 43.21 49.41 109.89 0.10 0.44 104.00 0.94 0.98 3116.08 44993.00 577.00 2229.00 89.46

Theni 35.31 62.87 74.56 0.20 0.43 87.00 0.71 0.27 2952.37 35539.00 204.40 6082.00 1.49

Thoothukkudi 62.24 60.91 120.49 0.16 0.36 89.00 0.93 0.08 10591.20 70778.00 21.97 59939.00 1.54

Tiruchirappalli 60.45 89.50 69.71 0.21 0.34 95.00 0.67 0.32 2684.24 27408.00 6.71 11842.00 0.18

Tirunelveli 52.07 47.08 43.03 0.15 0.39 157.00 0.95 0.08 3075.88 63467.00 29.40 32080.00 0.09

Tiruppur 61.32 97.16 64.62 0.11 0.42 99.00 0.95 0.16 4376.67 65011.00 34.06 94363.00 0.08

Tiruvallur 62.80 69.74 110.93 0.48 0.43 89.00 0.89 0.01 3359.42 54259.00 83.51 162755.00 0.20

Tiruvannamalai 48.96 111.23 88.26 0.26 0.41 123.00 0.84 0.59 8790.96 72479.00 88.15 137335.00 10.97

Tiruvarur 37.78 120.60 89.56 0.18 0.43 127.00 0.93 0.30 5910.97 35241.00 66.41 24320.00 2.12

Vellore 51.71 104.12 117.79 0.18 0.38 87.00 0.95 0.34 5165.79 52900.00 81.41 30504.00 0.18

Villupuram 36.49 76.68 91.21 0.11 0.42 78.00 0.94 0.24 4569.18 30181.00 29.17 106051.00 0.01

Virudhunagar 43.24 76.63 65.11 0.28 0.44 75.00 0.90 0.42 4954.82 70689.00 36.02 47975.00 0.30
 Appendix_Table 30: Actual values of indicators for Telangana

raifedagriculture

District
Per capita income
Female Literacy Rates
by Districts
% of landless,
marginaland small
formars
Livestock to human
ratio or Fer hectare
(sheeps and goats)
Women participation
in labour
Forest area (in
ha)/1000 rural
Population
Value of output of
Total horticulture
(only perrennaial)/
Value of agricultral
output)
Variability in food
grain crop yield
(10 years) (check
availability at the
district level)
Stage of Groundwater
Development(%)
Road density
Rural bank / 1000
Population
Average Person
days per household
employed under
MGNREGA
% crop area covered
under crop insurance
IMR
No of doctors,
specialists, health
assistants & health
Workers per 1000
Population
Water Borne
Vector Borne

Adilabad 0.89 0.63 0.01 0.97 0.82 0.54 0.91 0.75 0.78 0.56 0.76 0.90 0.41 0.23 0.29 0.67 1.00 0.61
Bhadradri
0.89 0.48 0.70 1.00 0.58 0.14 0.37 0.33 0.22 0.06 0.95 0.39 0.33 0.74 0.88 0.45 0.33 0.48
Kothagudem
Jagtial 1.00 0.71 0.82 0.48 0.38 0.89 0.26 0.07 0.67 0.72 0.65 0.60 0.70 0.57 0.76 0.72 0.16 0.00
Jangaon 0.96 0.67 0.45 0.30 0.91 0.99 0.86 0.28 0.50 0.97 0.16 0.95 0.61 0.74 0.12 0.72 0.10 0.04
Jayashankar
0.92 0.69 0.67 0.94 0.71 0.00 0.54 0.20 0.87 0.42 1.00 0.87 0.75 0.83 0.06 0.63 0.55 1.00
BhupalFally
Jogulamba Gadwal 0.97 1.00 0.06 0.65 0.82 1.00 0.40 0.38 0.20 0.32 0.60 0.84 0.87 0.09 0.06 0.83 0.31 0.02
Kamareddy 0.98 0.82 0.70 0.66 0.51 0.85 0.99 0.42 0.51 0.76 0.52 0.16 0.17 0.54 0.41 0.62 0.08 0.01
Karimnagar 0.88 0.45 0.87 0.33 0.68 1.00 0.97 0.16 0.26 0.73 0.24 0.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.00 0.02 0.05
Khammam 0.93 0.50 0.71 0.70 0.21 0.92 0.19 0.55 0.37 0.59 0.42 0.28 0.88 0.82 0.12 0.61 0.18 0.05
Kumarambheem
0.93 0.79 0.60 0.96 1.00 0.18 0.97 0.51 0.87 0.00 0.73 0.89 0.75 0.88 0.94 0.70 0.36 0.59
Asifabad
Mahabubabad 0.96 0.78 0.71 0.47 0.66 0.69 0.04 0.18 0.62 0.69 0.62 0.88 0.86 0.79 0.29 0.82 0.34 0.05
Mahabubnagar 0.91 0.84 0.30 0.00 0.09 0.95 0.68 0.91 1.00 0.63 0.46 0.56 0.69 0.42 0.06 0.58 0.21 0.25
Mancherial 0.96 0.57 0.64 0.78 0.93 0.43 0.73 0.27 0.78 0.25 0.67 0.52 0.63 0.00 0.35 0.71 0.08 0.05
Medak 0.82 0.85 0.81 0.47 0.73 0.88 0.85 0.20 0.40 0.58 0.41 0.77 0.55 0.28 0.29 0.64 0.36 0.08
Medchal-Malkajgiri 0.73 0.00 0.72 0.75 0.39 0.94 0.01 0.00 0.15 1.00 0.70 0.28 0.48 0.62 0.53 0.92 0.07 0.14
Nagarkurnool 0.99 0.89 0.00 0.75 0.59 0.53 0.82 0.71 0.33 0.61 0.78 0.76 0.68 0.57 0.24 0.87 0.09 0.04
Nalgonda 0.92 0.63 0.43 0.68 0.00 0.93 0.52 1.00 0.33 0.72 0.48 0.42 0.87 0.74 0.35 0.46 0.13 0.02
Nirmal 0.92 0.80 0.53 0.77 0.70 0.68 0.71 0.42 0.22 0.20 0.63 0.53 0.30 0.76 0.47 0.78 0.43 0.01
Nizamabad 0.95 0.59 0.97 0.70 0.04 0.89 0.89 0.14 0.17 0.73 0.52 0.13 0.76 0.46 0.29 0.33 0.04 0.06
Peddapalle 0.87 0.53 0.87 0.48 0.92 0.91 1.00 0.05 0.47 0.41 0.66 0.94 0.66 0.58 1.00 0.96 0.01 0.02
Rajanna Sircilla 0.97 0.66 0.78 0.55 0.88 0.87 1.00 0.22 0.53 0.83 0.22 1.00 0.44 0.66 0.12 1.00 0.00 0.00
Rangareddy 0.00 0.34 0.86 0.68 0.03 0.96 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.82 0.42 0.45 0.03 0.75 0.18 0.86 0.01 0.13
Sangareddy 0.85 0.59 0.61 0.79 0.39 0.97 0.62 0.78 0.80 0.68 0.63 0.57 0.46 0.87 0.24 0.00 0.11 0.08
Siddipet 0.89 0.69 0.63 0.51 0.49 0.96 0.66 0.65 0.62 1.00 0.20 0.88 0.31 0.19 0.53 0.37 0.25 0.02
Suryapet 0.94 0.59 0.66 0.56 0.42 0.98 0.78 0.28 0.00 0.54 0.35 0.36 0.98 0.67 0.59 0.80 0.07 0.01
Vikarabad 0.95 0.77 0.34 0.82 0.58 0.92 0.38 0.61 0.23 0.46 0.39 0.58 0.00 0.43 0.53 0.87 0.33 0.08
Wanaparthy 0.99 0.85 0.28 0.01 0.90 0.97 0.84 0.15 0.61 0.62 0.57 0.84 0.49 0.15 0.24 0.83 0.29 0.30
Warangal Rural 0.95 0.70 0.77 0.25 0.72 0.96 0.51 0.15 0.81 0.89 0.18 0.92 0.97 1.00 0.35 0.74 0.12 0.07
Warangal Urban 0.96 0.25 1.00 0.30 0.82 0.99 0.84 0.06 0.11 0.96 0.00 0.55 0.81 0.96 0.06 0.91 0.13 0.09

161
Yadadri Bhuvanagiri 0.86 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.83 0.97 0.83 0.30 0.06 0.73 0.37 0.84 0.98 0.29 0.00 0.88 0.07 0.05
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
 Appendix_Table 31: Actual values of indicators for Tripura

162
District
% BPL Households
% of area under forest
Livestock per 1000
population
Percentage of households
with the improved Drinking
water source
Yield variability of foodgrains
Female literacy
IMR
Average person days per
household employed under
MGNREGA
Cropping Intensity
Health infrastructure per
thousand population
in India Using a Common Framework

Dhalai 70.86 80.35 0.00 20.15 9.11 79.79 21.60 93.54 177.00 3.91

North Tripura 66.52 62.95 0.03 23.96 5.55 84.39 15.00 74.92 168.00 2.76

Unakoti 64.95 48.03 0.00 20.01 8.89 82.79 21.60 79.26 179.00 2.58

South Tripura 64.39 66.76 0.00 20.12 5.31 79.54 9.90 98.56 191.00 3.93
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

Gomati 67.64 67.62 0.00 22.08 5.31 79.00 8.10 93.54 194.00 3.80

West Tripura 59.78 27.97 0.01 37.87 7.18 88.01 14.40 86.19 182.00 1.90

Khowai 62.51 59.03 0.00 17.85 6.32 83.17 8.10 88.69 176.00 3.83

Sipahijala 66.33 30.06 0.00 16.48 9.46 79.49 5.60 84.98 219.00 3.50
 Appendix_Table 32: Actual values of indicators for Uttar Pradesh

District
Livestock to human ratio
% of marginal and small
operational holders
% area covered under
centrally funded crop
insurance (PMFBY, WBCIS)
Forest area per 100 rural
population
% Womens participation in
workforce
Average person days per
household employed under
MGNREGA
Number of NRM works per
1,000 ha (MGNREGS)
Road Density
Health infrastructure per
thousand population
IMR
% Households with
Electricity
% HH With improved
drinking water source
Yield variability of
foodgrains

Agra 0.24 0.85 0.16 0.01 0.19 43.55 146.50 0.55 0.11 64.00 92.00 71.30 0.14
Aligarh 0.25 0.86 0.13 0.00 0.21 37.89 293.15 0.30 0.11 73.00 84.60 97.80 0.13
PrayagRaj (Allahabad) 0.17 0.93 0.11 0.00 0.32 44.73 754.65 0.51 0.11 80.00 78.50 92.20 0.19
Ambedkar nagar 0.18 0.97 0.11 0.00 0.30 45.18 417.45 0.08 0.13 69.00 72.60 99.90 0.13
Auraiya 0.27 0.93 0.26 0.00 0.18 38.02 430.06 0.35 0.14 65.00 67.90 98.30 0.11
Azamgarh 0.14 0.96 0.07 0.00 0.31 41.43 995.56 0.06 0.13 57.00 82.90 99.50 0.14
Bagpat 0.25 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.18 35.77 130.96 0.23 0.18 61.00 92.00 99.40 0.10
Bahraich 0.16 0.95 0.20 0.02 0.22 49.70 116.10 0.06 0.11 80.00 31.30 99.10 0.13
Ballia 0.15 0.94 0.17 0.00 0.29 43.18 514.93 0.09 0.14 60.00 69.80 98.50 0.20
Balrampur 0.15 0.93 0.06 0.03 0.30 55.00 176.77 0.05 0.12 78.00 35.80 98.50 0.15
Banda 0.27 0.80 0.23 0.01 0.31 52.28 433.76 0.06 0.19 72.00 67.30 97.80 0.32
Barabanki 0.19 0.96 0.44 0.00 0.27 50.19 416.86 0.12 0.13 85.00 49.70 99.20 0.16
Bareilly 0.16 0.93 0.08 0.00 0.18 35.64 1950.00 0.18 0.12 79.00 69.60 99.00 0.15
Basti 0.14 0.96 0.24 0.00 0.29 50.59 1349.70 0.10 0.13 67.00 66.60 99.80 0.18
Bijnor 0.19 0.89 0.01 0.01 0.15 26.11 709.71 0.14 0.11 76.00 79.60 99.90 0.07
Badaun 0.29 0.93 0.10 0.00 0.15 47.04 336.11 0.18 0.10 85.00 52.40 100.00 0.13
Bulandshahr 0.28 0.91 0.24 0.01 0.23 20.60 150.49 0.16 0.12 73.00 87.90 99.60 0.11
Chandauli (Varanasi Dehat) 0.23 0.94 0.27 0.03 0.29 47.78 1096.42 0.09 0.15 57.00 70.80 88.90 0.17
Chitrakoot 0.36 0.85 0.20 0.07 0.35 54.13 303.17 0.02 0.17 73.00 67.30 92.20 0.42
Deoria 0.10 0.96 0.23 0.00 0.27 47.77 868.11 0.15 0.13 56.00 70.50 99.50 0.18
Etah 0.30 0.93 0.08 0.00 0.19 48.52 316.33 0.12 0.13 75.00 65.90 99.10 0.15
Etawah 0.24 0.93 0.25 0.02 0.18 44.20 662.05 0.09 0.13 61.00 91.30 98.60 0.13
Ayodhya (Fazaibad) 0.18 0.97 0.22 0.00 0.18 48.45 721.91 0.18 0.12 72.00 65.40 98.70 0.15
Farrukhabad 0.23 0.94 0.15 0.00 0.16 40.28 381.02 0.12 0.12 72.00 62.60 99.90 0.17
Fatehpur 0.24 0.92 0.31 0.00 0.33 52.02 421.72 0.05 0.14 76.00 45.40 97.60 0.17

163
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

(Cont.)
 Appendix_Table 32: Actual values of indicators for Uttar Pradesh

164
District
Livestock to human ratio
% of marginal and small
operational holders
% area covered under
centrally funded crop
insurance (PMFBY, WBCIS)
Forest area per 100 rural
population
% Womens participation in
workforce
Average person days per
household employed under
MGNREGA
Number of NRM works per
1,000 ha (MGNREGS)
Road Density
Health infrastructure per
thousand population
IMR
% Households with
Electricity
% HH With improved
drinking water source
Yield variability of
foodgrains
in India Using a Common Framework

Firozabad 0.25 0.87 0.18 0.00 0.18 48.31 358.12 0.13 0.12 70.00 85.50 96.40 0.11
Gautam Buddha Nagar 0.16 0.92 0.20 0.00 0.22 22.73 156.79 0.81 0.10 61.00 98.60 63.60 0.14
Ghaziabad 0.10 0.91 0.05 0.00 0.19 16.98 448.69 1.65 0.09 65.00 97.40 84.90 0.34
Ghazipur 0.18 0.95 0.16 0.00 0.33 43.19 252.00 0.07 0.14 70.00 67.90 99.10 0.12
Gonda 0.17 0.96 0.05 0.00 0.27 50.63 394.70 0.06 0.11 68.00 39.60 100.00 0.08
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

Gorakhpur 0.09 0.96 0.23 0.00 0.25 45.14 663.96 0.46 0.14 59.00 74.80 99.20 0.21
Hamirpur 0.24 0.76 0.25 0.03 0.30 53.78 474.01 0.05 0.24 65.00 73.10 99.10 0.28
Hardoi 0.23 0.93 0.14 0.00 0.17 52.67 357.17 0.08 0.12 84.00 42.20 99.60 0.12
Jalaun 0.24 0.77 0.44 0.02 0.24 33.41 379.41 0.09 0.20 56.00 89.00 98.10 0.31
Jaunpur 0.18 0.97 0.06 0.00 0.35 49.36 1179.79 0.09 0.14 66.00 78.30 95.40 0.14
Jhansi 0.19 0.81 1.08 0.03 0.31 51.34 265.33 0.10 0.20 61.00 88.90 96.10 0.23
Kannauj 0.31 0.96 0.29 0.00 0.18 39.57 839.94 0.09 0.14 70.00 70.70 99.70 0.17
Kanpur Dehat 0.33 0.92 0.32 0.00 0.21 44.79 254.55 0.07 0.15 68.00 45.50 98.70 0.19
Kanpur Nagar 0.11 0.93 0.36 0.00 0.17 42.67 328.68 1.48 0.11 62.00 85.90 99.20 0.21
Kanshiram Nagar
0.33 0.93 0.08 0.00 0.21 45.56 717.82 0.15 0.15 82.00 54.30 99.80 0.15
(Kansganj)
Kaushambi 0.24 0.94 0.17 0.09 0.37 46.11 112.63 0.02 0.14 85.00 49.00 96.80 0.17
Lakhimpur Kheri (Kheri) 0.24 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.16 43.47 805.51 0.16 0.11 82.00 41.40 99.10 0.16
Kushinagar 0.07 0.97 0.03 0.02 0.28 46.89 864.85 0.04 0.12 75.00 48.30 97.60 0.15
Lalitpur 0.36 0.80 1.36 0.00 0.35 53.52 627.11 0.10 0.19 77.00 78.00 94.10 0.24
Lucknow 0.08 0.95 0.19 0.02 0.21 44.48 846.12 1.85 0.09 59.00 93.50 98.90 0.14
Hathras (Mahamaya Nagar) 0.26 0.88 0.08 0.00 0.18 33.41 422.83 0.13 0.15 63.00 86.30 96.30 0.14
Mahoba 0.23 0.75 0.46 0.02 0.32 49.91 126.91 0.04 0.20 68.00 79.20 93.40 0.38
Mahrajganj 0.07 0.96 0.25 0.02 0.34 45.55 810.30 0.04 0.13 77.00 51.70 99.30 0.11
Mainpuri 0.29 0.95 0.10 0.00 0.17 45.89 544.93 0.09 0.14 78.00 81.90 99.30 0.12

(Cont.)
 Appendix_Table 32: Actual values of indicators for Uttar Pradesh

District
Livestock to human ratio
% of marginal and small
operational holders
% area covered under
centrally funded crop
insurance (PMFBY, WBCIS)
Forest area per 100 rural
population
% Womens participation in
workforce
Average person days per
household employed under
MGNREGA
Number of NRM works per
1,000 ha (MGNREGS)
Road Density
Health infrastructure per
thousand population
IMR
% Households with
Electricity
% HH With improved
drinking water source
Yield variability of
foodgrains

Mathura 0.22 0.58 0.59 0.00 0.24 42.88 150.90 0.19 0.10 73.00 95.60 84.20 0.17
Maunath Bhanjan (Mau) 0.12 0.97 0.11 0.00 0.32 48.20 741.97 0.10 0.13 67.00 82.90 99.50 0.20
Meerut 0.16 0.88 0.01 0.00 0.18 47.68 391.17 0.43 0.10 62.00 95.90 99.50 0.09
Mirzapur 0.22 0.91 0.31 0.04 0.30 48.23 287.85 0.08 0.13 78.00 68.30 88.10 0.19
Moradabad 0.24 0.91 0.08 0.00 0.18 48.11 821.52 0.46 0.12 77.00 79.00 99.60 0.13
Muzaffarnagar 0.19 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.16 39.52 318.11 0.27 0.12 70.00 84.10 99.90 0.11
Pilibhit 0.13 0.87 0.21 0.04 0.14 36.40 339.12 0.09 0.12 79.00 51.70 99.50 0.12
Pratapgarh 0.26 0.97 0.19 0.00 0.34 45.82 353.78 0.07 0.13 68.00 71.30 92.50 0.15
Rae bareli 0.18 0.95 0.44 0.00 0.28 45.12 773.49 0.07 0.12 74.00 71.60 98.40 0.14
Rampur 0.15 0.89 0.35 0.00 0.17 45.26 695.82 0.21 0.11 72.00 80.80 99.80 0.14
Saharanpur 0.15 0.85 0.02 0.02 0.12 27.33 217.95 0.13 0.13 71.00 93.40 99.30 0.11
Sant kabir nagar 0.10 0.96 0.29 0.00 0.29 49.16 1527.95 0.05 0.12 64.00 63.10 99.70 0.16
Sant ravidas nagar
0.16 0.98 0.07 0.00 0.27 43.31 320.20 0.24 0.12 77.00 80.10 86.40 0.22
(bhadohi)
Shahjahanpur 0.21 0.91 0.07 0.00 0.12 39.86 230.86 0.25 0.12 79.00 53.30 99.80 0.15
Shravasti 0.22 0.94 0.23 0.03 0.27 51.59 408.54 0.02 0.13 82.00 25.60 98.00 0.13
Siddharthnagar 0.08 0.96 0.22 0.00 0.34 47.54 1187.56 0.07 0.14 73.00 61.90 99.70 0.19
Sitapur 0.18 0.94 0.05 0.01 0.18 48.11 611.18 0.12 0.12 87.00 29.90 98.70 0.15
Sonbhadra 0.25 0.85 0.29 0.16 0.37 42.42 175.38 0.05 0.11 69.00 52.40 87.50 0.26
Sultanpur 0.25 0.97 0.23 0.01 0.30 49.60 681.47 0.06 0.15 66.00 75.00 95.30 0.43
Unnao 0.23 0.95 0.22 0.01 0.24 47.11 413.78 0.11 0.14 76.00 45.00 97.70 0.15
Varanasi (Kashi) 0.19 0.99 0.11 0.00 0.25 36.08 586.32 1.29 0.11 64.00 88.40 96.00 0.16

165
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
 Appendix_Table 33: Actual values of indicators for Uttarakhand

166
in India Using a Common Framework

% of household have KCC with

Districts
Cropping intensity
Proportion of area undr
commercial crops to set sown
area
% of marginal and small
operational holders
Drainage Density
Road Density
Annual average days of work per
household under MGNREGA
Net irrigated area to net sown
area
NRM work per 1000 ha
Income Diversification
limit 50000 or above
Livestock to human ratio

Almora 146.00 2.67 0.95 0.20 1.21 34.84 59.07 0.00 0.94 1.32 365.55

Bageshwar 166.00 1.20 0.97 0.17 0.42 42.94 57.51 0.00 0.95 0.86 442.26
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning

Chamoli 147.00 5.64 0.94 0.05 0.29 46.38 54.58 0.00 0.92 1.14 536.73

Champawat 154.73 5.83 0.98 0.14 0.81 45.60 47.69 0.00 0.93 1.72 378.85

Dehradun 145.78 9.36 0.98 0.33 1.94 51.22 28.71 0.00 0.75 4.29 141.16

Garhwal (Pauri Garhwal) 149.00 3.01 0.98 0.15 0.92 37.12 81.45 0.00 0.83 0.71 425.14

Hardwar (Haridwar) 142.00 43.57 0.96 0.19 1.62 42.65 41.89 0.01 0.97 9.82 212.47

Nainital 157.00 19.52 0.90 0.20 0.98 45.75 35.53 0.00 0.89 2.90 267.34

Pithoragarh 168.00 5.44 0.98 0.05 0.32 44.74 59.45 0.00 0.91 1.64 441.53

Rudraprayag 160.08 1.86 0.96 0.24 0.36 46.51 89.10 0.01 0.92 0.60 449.31

Tehri Garhwal 148.92 4.32 0.99 0.21 1.19 34.38 46.92 0.00 0.91 1.10 281.83

Udham Singh Nagar 188.00 8.83 0.96 0.40 1.69 42.07 35.75 0.01 0.95 7.64 197.69

Uttarkashi 139.00 10.39 0.96 0.08 0.08 46.98 47.32 0.00 0.97 3.56 477.01
 Appendix_Table 34: Actual values of indicators for districts of West Bengal

Districts
Per Capita Income
% of Female literacy rate
Livestock to human ratio
Forest area per 100 rural
population
Yield variability of foodgrains
Average person days per
household employed under
MGNREGA
Number of NRM works per
1,000 ha (MGNREGS) and/or
other schemes
Road Density
Health infrastructure per
thousand population
IMR
% HH With improved drinking
water source
Cases of vector borne
diseases/1000 Population
(Dengue & Malaria)

Bankura 63521.00 65.20 0.28 0.04 0.19 45.86 765.62 0.02 0.18 38.00 96.40 0.34

Bardhaman (Paschim &

210175.00 66.60 0.15 0.01 0.10 44.16 803.46 0.29 0.12 44.00 96.60 0.17
Purba)

Birbhum 53362.00 62.10 0.23 0.01 0.16 42.57 2345.87 0.15 0.16 49.00 97.40 0.24

Dakshin Dinajpur 26766.00 67.30 0.20 0.01 0.11 52.57 5977.02 0.00 0.17 52.00 99.40 0.27

Darjeeling 57090.00 78.00 0.09 0.21 0.20 75.51 283.58 0.18 0.15 43.00 71.00 0.73

Howrah 121930.00 78.40 0.03 0.02 0.25 50.96 4509.88 1.66 0.11 41.00 96.50 0.51

Hoogli 129568.00 76.30 0.10 0.00 0.09 40.34 2002.86 0.68 0.14 38.00 98.50 0.30

Jalpaiguri 73656.00 64.20 0.21 0.10 0.21 48.26 900.11 0.15 0.09 49.00 85.20 0.63

Cooch Bihar 42765.00 66.80 0.26 0.01 0.42 44.96 3286.09 0.13 0.16 47.00 97.90 0.12

Malda 62792.00 64.20 0.17 0.01 0.37 52.59 4819.98 0.15 0.14 58.00 82.90 0.59

Murshidabad 109973.00 66.10 0.10 0.01 0.10 56.64 10590.72 0.39 0.13 53.00 97.50 0.36

Nadia 95466.00 73.70 0.10 0.01 0.21 44.44 1227.40 0.26 0.11 42.00 95.00 0.66

North Twenty Four Parganas 37010.00 82.90 0.04 0.02 0.14 59.44 3682.95 3.39 0.09 44.00 92.00 1.89

Paschim Medinipur 44540.00 70.70 0.23 0.04 0.14 48.17 668.29 0.09 0.17 40.00 96.50 0.10

Purba Medinipur 101532.00 76.10 0.12 0.02 0.06 52.59 20989.82 0.15 0.16 43.00 98.90 0.17

Puruliya 44540.00 48.10 0.25 0.04 0.11 57.66 978.11 0.03 0.19 40.00 82.70 0.73

South Twenty Four Parganas 155058.00 74.60 0.07 0.05 0.22 68.72 2982.83 0.24 0.15 48.00 97.70 0.57

167
Uttar Dinajpur 36531.00 51.10 0.22 0.01 0.12 57.40 2469.43 0.18 0.13 56.00 97.50 0.14
in India Using a Common Framework
Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Adaptation Planning
About DST
The Department of Science and Technology (DST) was established in May 1971, with
the objective of promoting new areas of Science & Technology and to play the role
of a nodal department for organising, coordinating and promoting S&T activities in
the country. The Department of Science & Technology (DST) has been entrusted with
the responsibility of coordinating two out of eight national missions launched under
the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). These are National Mission
for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem (NMSHE) and National Mission on Strategic
Knowledge for Climate Change (NMSKCC).

About SDC
The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) has been a partner of
India for more than 60 years. Since 2011, SDC’s engagement focuses specifically on
climate change and other environmental issues. The office in India is part of SDC’s
Global Programme Climate Change and Environment (GPCCE). Other SDC Global
Programmes like Food Security and Water also have ongoing activities in India, as
part of their regional/global initiatives.