Source: The post “The climate is breaching the wall of urban metrics” has been created, based on “The climate is breaching the wall of urban metrics” published in “The Hindu” on 04th December 2025.
UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper-3- Environment
Context: Urban resilience, particularly in the face of climate change, is an emerging concern in rapidly urbanizing regions like Asia. While global urban indices, such as the UN-Habitat City Prosperity Index and the Global Liveability Index, measure a city’s development based on factors like infrastructure, governance, and quality of life, these metrics often fail to account for the risks posed by extreme weather events. Recent natural disasters in Asia, such as floods and cyclones, highlight significant gaps in how urban resilience is assessed, revealing the need for more comprehensive and inclusive measures.
Limitations of Current Urban Resilience Metrics:
- Exclusion of Vulnerable Areas: Most global urban indices focus on major metropolitan areas or capital cities, overlooking secondary cities and peri-urban regions that often bear the brunt of climate risks.
- For example, cities like Hat Yai in Thailand or Cebu in the Philippines, despite being key regional hubs, are excluded from liveability rankings.
- These areas, though economically important, lack the same resources and infrastructure as larger cities, leaving them more vulnerable to climate-induced disasters.
- Narrow Focus on Visible Infrastructure: Indices like the Global Liveability Index prioritize indicators such as healthcare, public transport, and education, which are important but fail to conside
- The recent floods in Sri Lanka and Indonesia, where existing infrastructure was overwhelmed by extreme rainfall, demonstrate that modern cities must be assessed on their capacity to handle such shocks, not just their visible amenities.
- Mispricing of Risk and Inequity: Current urban metrics tend to use city-wide averages, which mask the disparities in vulnerability within cities.
- Wealthier residents benefit from better infrastructure, mobility, and access to insurance, which helps them mitigate risks during extreme weather events.
- In contrast, marginalised communities living in informal settlements or flood-prone areas face higher risks, yet they are often not included in resilience assessments. This exacerbates the inequality of urban risk and misrepresents the actual resilience of the city.
- Failure to Address Long-Term Climate Adaptation:
- Urban indices largely fail to incorporate long-term climate adaptation strategies. They focus on the present state of a city, but do not measure its preparedness for future climate challenges.
- This oversight can lead to investments that prioritize short-term economic growth rather than sustainable infrastructure and disaster management systems, further deepening vulnerabilities in the long run.
Way Forward
To more accurately measure urban resilience in the context of climate change, a new framework that goes beyond traditional urban indices is necessary. The following measures should be considered:
- Inclusion of Secondary Cities and Peri-Urban Areas:
- Urban resilience metrics must include all regions within a city, not just major metropolitan hubs.
- Secondary cities and peri-urban areas are often more vulnerable to climate change but are essential parts of national economies. Integrating these areas into urban assessments will provide a more holistic picture of a city’s resilience.
- Focus on Climate-Resilient Infrastructure:
- Future urban indices should prioritize measures of climate resilience, such as the capacity of drainage systems, the stability of infrastructure on floodplains, and the effectiveness of early warning systems.
- Cities should be evaluated on their ability to withstand and recover from extreme weather events, not just on their economic output or connectivity.
- Equity in Risk Assessment:
- Urban resilience metrics should account for the varying levels of vulnerability across different socioeconomic groups within a city.
- Wealthier areas should not be over-represented in resilience assessments while poorer, more vulnerable regions are underrepresented.
- Indices should measure how effectively a city protects its most at-risk populations, ensuring that resilience is inclusive.
- Long-Term Adaptation and Sustainability:
- The focus of urban indices should shift towards long-term sustainability and adaptation to climate change. This includes evaluating cities on their ability to implement and maintain resilient infrastructure, enforce building codes, and manage risks in informal settlements.
- Prioritizing climate adaptation projects in areas prone to natural disasters should be a key metric in urban assessments.
- Transparent and Accessible Data:
- To make these changes effective, cities must have access to comprehensive, real-time data on climate risks, urban infrastructure, and social vulnerability.
- Governments should be encouraged to collect and share data on local climate hazards, infrastructure performance, and community resilience, allowing for more accurate assessments and targeted investments.
Conclusion: The existing urban resilience indices do not adequately reflect the vulnerabilities cities face due to climate change, especially in Asia. A more inclusive and effective approach to urban resilience measurement is necessary, one that focuses on the specific risks posed by extreme weather events, considers the inequities within cities, and emphasizes long-term climate adaptation strategies. By adopting these approaches, cities can better prepare for the challenges posed by climate change and ensure a more resilient and equitable future for all urban residents.
Question: Discuss the limitations of current urban resilience metrics in addressing the climate challenges faced by cities in Asia. Suggest a more inclusive and effective approach for measuring urban resilience.
