Building Resilient Indian Cities: Financing, Technology, and Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Risks
- Annesha Dasgupta
- Oct 1
- 5 min read
On a scorching May afternoon in Ahmedabad, the air shimmers above pavements that radiate stored heat. Weeks later, those same streets turn into shallow rivers after a sudden cloudburst. This cycle of extreme heat followed by urban flooding is no longer an exception, it is the new routine for Indian cities. The real question is not whether these risks exist, but whether our planning systems are prepared to manage them.
Urban India is heating nearly twice as fast as its rural surroundings, primarily due to concretization, the loss of wetlands, and the urban heat island effect¹. At the same time, erratic monsoon rainfall has increased the frequency of urban floods². These overlapping hazards create escalating costs for municipalities, households, and businesses. Resilience, therefore, needs to move from theory to investment, and that requires clarity on costs, funders, and long-term benefits.
Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI)
Resilience can be achieved by combining natural systems with affordable technologies and effective governance. One strategy is the adoption of blue-green infrastructure, which treats lakes, rivers, wetlands, and tree cover as critical urban assets. Ahmedabad has embedded blue-green infrastructure into its Climate Resilient City Action Plan. These restorations require crores in upfront spending, but donor agencies such as the Rockefeller Foundation and multilateral development banks have co-financed pilot projects³. The operational challenge is maintenance; revived lakes require desilting and buffer protection, which demands steady municipal budgets. However, the financial savings are significant. For example, Chennai’s restoration of the Korattur wetland, costing around Rs. 20 crore, reduced flood damage in nearby neighbourhoods by more than double that amount during the 2015 floods⁴.
An international comparison comes from Rotterdam, where water plazas were built at an average cost of €2 million per site, which double as parks and flood basins. Cost-benefit studies show that avoided flood damages and improved land values offset construction costs within 10 to 15 years⁵. The lesson for Indian cities is that BGI requires upfront capital but pays back through reduced damages and co-benefits like recreation and biodiversity.
How Technology Helps Cities Predict Floods
To reduce damage, a few cities are turning to simple technology. For example, Thane has started a system called TUFAN (Thane Urban Flood Alert Network). It uses small devices placed near water bodies that work like sensors. These sensors measure how high the water level is and send the information in real time to the city’s control room. If the water rises beyond a danger point, the system immediately sends out alerts to warn people.
The project was funded through municipal budgets with technical support from ICLEI South Asia⁶. Setting up this system cost the city around 3 to 4 crore rupees, which came from the municipal budget. While this may sound expensive, it can save much more money by preventing damage to homes, vehicles, and infrastructure during floods. The challenge is that the sensors need regular cleaning because silt and dirt can block them, and the city must also ensure that residents understand and trust the alerts.
Other countries are experimenting with similar ideas at a larger scale. For instance, Copenhagen in Denmark has invested over 50 million euros in smart drainage systems that use sensors to manage water flow during storms. Insurance companies there have co-financed these projects because fewer floods mean fewer claims. This shows that Indian cities could also explore partnerships with private players, so that the cost and responsibility do not fall only on local governments.
Surat’s Institutional Innovation
After devastating floods in the 1990s, Surat established the Surat Climate Change Trust and an Urban Health Surveillance System. The Trust pools funds from the municipal corporation, state government, and international donors like the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network⁸. The financial model is unusual; it does not rely on one-off projects but channels resources into a standing institution that coordinates across health, water, and planning departments. Operationally, the challenge is sustaining political will, but Surat has succeeded by linking resilience directly to industrial productivity, since floods in textile zones have heavy economic impacts. This approach demonstrates that resilience is not only about physical infrastructure but also about long-term governance investment.
Cool Roofs and Heat Action Plans
One of the most cost-effective strategies has been Ahmedabad’s cool roof program. Reflective lime-based paints can cost as little as ₹5 per square foot. A 100 sq.ft. roof therefore, requires only about ₹500 for material and labor⁹. The municipal corporation, supported by NRDC and international donors, subsidized this cost for low-income households. Studies show that indoor temperatures fell by two to five degrees Celsius, leading to lower electricity bills and fewer cases of heat-related illness¹⁰.
In the United States, New York City launched a Cool Roof Program in 2009. By 2018, over 6.7 million square feet of rooftops were coated at an average cost of $0.50 per square foot¹¹. The city partnered with private companies that provided labor, while municipal subsidies covered materials. The cost savings in reduced heat stress and energy demand have been significant. This example shows that scaling reflective roofs can be achieved through public-private models that minimize municipal expenditure while creating local jobs.
Conclusion
Floods already cause billions of rupees in damages to Indian cities annually, and heatwaves kill more people each year than most other natural hazards¹². Productivity losses from extreme heat are projected to cost India 2.5 to 4.5 percent of GDP by mid-century¹³. In this context, the question is not whether Indian cities can afford resilience measures but whether they can afford not to invest.
Ahmedabad, Thane, Surat, and Chennai show that both low-cost interventions and high-tech solutions can deliver measurable benefits when backed by funding clarity and operational planning. International cases from Rotterdam, Copenhagen, and New York demonstrate that such measures pay back their costs within a decade or less. Indian cities must therefore integrate cost-benefit logic into urban planning, ensuring resilience is seen as a long-term financial strategy, not just an environmental goal.
References
1. Time Magazine. “Indian cities heating nearly twice as fast as rural areas.” 2025.
2. IPCC AR6, WGII. “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.” 2022.
3. The Secretariat. “Ahmedabad Climate Resilient City Action Plan.” 2025.
4. IIHS. “Reviving Urban Waters in India.” 2024.
5. OECD. “Water Governance in the Netherlands: Fit for the Future?” 2014.
6. ICLEI South Asia. “Thane Urban Flood Alert Network (TUFAN).” 2025.
7. Copenhagen Solutions Lab. “Smart Water Management Projects.” 2020.
8. WRI India. “Urban Climate Resilience in Surat.” 2024.
9. Joshi et al. “Climate Change and Cooling Demand in Ahmedabad.” IJERPH. 2022.
10. Vellingiri et al. “Cool Roofs and Indoor Temperatures in Ahmedabad Slums.” IJERPH. 2020.
11. New York City Environmental Protection. “NYC Cool Roof Program Results.” 2019.
12. IPCC AR6. Summary for Policymakers. 2022.
ILO. “Working on a Warmer Planet: The Impact of Heat Stress on Labour Productivity.” 2019.
Comments