As heatwaves become more frequent, India's action plans have crucial gaps

Scroll.in

5 hours ago

This year, India experienced an unprecedented event. Goa and Maharashtra were hit by heatwaves in February – traditionally a winter month. The India Meteorological Department declared it the hottest February in 125 years.
This was not an isolated change. Each year, temperature records are being shattered around the world, with an increasing number of heat days and heatwaves.
Even as parts of the country now report an early onset of the monsoon, the urgency to address extreme heat remains undiminished.
As the onset of heatwaves advances, discussions around heat action plans are gaining momentum. A recent study of heat policies across nine Indian cities established that most focus on short-term emergency responses necessary for saving lives. But they lacked long-term actions aimed at reducing systemic exposure to heat and stress on public health systems.
In India, nearly 80% of the urban informal workforce is exposed to heat stress, a condition that arises when the body cannot regulate internal temperature or cool down effectively. This risk is higher among people who work outdoors, live in poorly ventilated homes or lack access to cooling. Most heat action plans overlook these critical vulnerabilities.
Cities are grappling with a double-edged sword – climate-induced temperature anomalies and localised urban heat driven by poor planning and rapid development.
To make heat responses effective, Indian cities must go beyond uniform strategies, understand the nature of heat and adapt their heat action strategies accordingly.
The devil is in the details
Heat is not monolithic. Its intensity, duration and impact varies across India's five geo-climatic zones: hot-dry, warm-humid, composite, temperate and cold. These classifications only provide a starting point. In practice, significant intra-state and even intra-city variations exist.
For example, while much of southern Karnataka is warm and humid, Bengaluru – due to its elevation – enjoys a temperate climate. The state's northern regions, meanwhile, face hot-dry or composite conditions. Maharashtra offers a similar contrast. Mumbai and coastal areas are warm and humid, while the interiors experience hot-dry conditions.
Zooming in further, even within a single city, heat exposure varies dramatically across neighborhoods. These differences are driven by land use, building materials, vegetation cover, and urban density. WRI India's ongoing research in Mumbai found that temperatures in some slum areas were up to 6°C higher than neighboring middle-income neighborhoods.
The Mumbai Climate Action Plan also documents significant temperature variances between neighborhoods, linked directly to vegetation cover.
Similarly, the Bengaluru Climate Action and Resilience Plan found that the city's planned core was cooler, while its unplanned peripheries, home to many of the marginalised, were significantly hotter. Night-time land surface temperatures in these areas have risen by over 1.5°C in two decades.
Well-planned neighborhoods with vegetation and waterbodies had summer land surface temperatures of 32°C-33°C, while industrial and poorly planned areas soared to 35°C-36°C.
The findings underline a critical insight – urban form and land use deeply influence heat exposure. This means that while overarching principles for heat management plans may be consistent, implementation must be tailored to context.
For example, while providing heat shelters is a common strategy, the building design and siting for warm-humid regions should differ vastly from hot-dry ones – from material choice and ventilation to energy usage considerations.
Multi-dimensional thinking
Effective heat action requires multi-dimensional thinking, from zoning and building codes to public health delivery systems, workplace safety and occupational hazard responses. It also demands that we recognise emerging spatial inequities that expose certain communities to disproportionately higher heat risks.
What can cities do to make heat management truly actionable?
First, they must build a case with better evidence. Cities must generate hyperlocal data that captures not just temperature but also the lived experiences of vulnerable populations. This means linking heat data with health records, socio-economic demographics and indicators of adaptive capacity to understand who is most at risk and why.
Second, the authorities must differentiate between the spatial scope and intent of heat action plans. State-level plans often focus on the primary sectors – agriculture, fisheries, livestock. Urban areas receive limited focus.
This is where city-specific plans become crucial. If done well, they can drill down to the micro-scale and offer the much-needed targeted solutions. Ironically, while Mumbai and Bengaluru do not yet have standalone heat action plans, their climate action plans provide an advanced foundation for localised heat responses. These cities are well-positioned to lead the discourse on contextual heat adaptation.
Lastly, none of this is possible without institutional capacity. Urban governance systems must be equipped not just technically, but institutionally and financially. Responding to heat requires coordination across departments – health, planning, transport, housing, etc. It also necessitates a shared understanding of the problem, current challenges, long-term ramifications and the consequent need for multi-scalar and contextual solutions.
India's cities are already in a state of climate emergency and heat is its most immediate and invisible threat. Without swift, locally informed action, we risk pushing over 75% of our labour force, especially those in heat-exposed jobs, into deeper vulnerability, jeopardising nearly 40% of our economy.
A one-size-fits-all approach will not suffice. To protect lives, safeguard livelihoods and secure long-term resilience, heat actions must reflect the lived realities of people and the diverse geographies they inhabit.