findings Manufacturing sector with investment in plant and machinery
inaccessible on foot or private transportation. Firm 6 in Sriperumbudur periodically experiences loss of elec-
tricity for up to 12 hours a day. While the situation has improved in the last three months, they still have to run generators for three to six hours
a day. During the loods, when diesel purchases were restricted, fuel was procured from 20 kilometers outside of Sriperumbudur so that some
degree of production could continue. The infrastructure and roads in this area are also poorly maintained, making it diicult for employees
to travel to work, especially when it is raining. The director said that his employees often have small accidents on the way to work when potholes
become hard to navigate while the streets are water-logged.
A couple of IE irms were situated in areas that were below the elevation of the Cooum River. They faced an added disadvantagae as they
were waterlogged for a signiicantly longer period of time since rainwa- ter did not naturally drain out of their property and they had to wait for
the water to evaporate. Some enterprises in this IE are just one boundary wall away from the river. In the same IE, the directors at Firm 3 said their
street was at a higher elevation than worksites that were as close as two blocks away, rendering Firm 3 less prone to seasonal water-logging, par-
ticularly during heavy rains and monsoons. Clearly, not all IEs are equal, nor are the locational disadvantages of the irms within them.
For those at a locational disadvantage within IEs, again, the in- vestments made to develop their plants deters them from seeking anoth-
er location. They do not want to leave and re-invest elsewhere. Secondly, having received the allotment in an area secured solely for industries like
their own, the expectations are that the government will provide and maintain the necessary infrastructure to decrease irm vulnerability in
low-lying IEs.
Rather than treating IEs as a composite whole, greater attention needs to be paid to the disparities that are present between and with-
in IEs. Presence within an IE is not enough to determine the extent of exposure to a natural hazard. It is more helpful to consider the ampliiers
and dampeners within IEs, particularly in such cases when elevation and relative isolation eclipse business advantages.
Still, all of the non-IE irms who expressed a desire to move to IEs seemed to value business opportunities over lood-proneness.
Whether they were aware of the extent of damages that IE irms had experienced as a result of looding is unclear. They did, however, value
the potential to undertake more shifts and have more reliable power: two very big expansion and coping mechanisms that IE irms reported in the
recovery eforts, which most non-IE could not undertake.
Apart from low-lying areas proving to be an ampliier, both IE and non-IE irms reported relative road-height as an ampliier. Increas-
ing road height was another example of a locational risk that was ac- knowledged in some cases, yet deemed manageable. Perhaps the most
vivid illustration of how elevation compares to other criteria when deciding a location is Firm 9. As the owner of the property on which he
started his irm, the entrepreneur knew the location was prone to sea- sonal waterlogging, with roads getting 2-3 feet higher over time. Still, the
cost of monthly rent elsewhere was seen as less afordable than the one- time investment involved in elevating the factory loor, a measure that
shielded the irm from on-site losses during monsoons, as well as from
complete inundation during the December 2015 loods. Similarly, Firm 12 increased their facility height from 3.5 feet to 4
feet, but the road height also increased from 5.5 feet to 6 feet. This result- ed in 2 feet of waterlogging inside their facility premises during the De-
cember 2015 loods, which has now prompted the respondent to move the manufacturing process from the ground loor to the irst loor.
In a later section on irm recovery, raising properties or elevat- ing platforms for machinery seem to be a common resilience-building
response after the loods. Compared to physically moving, afecting wid- er infrastructure, or compromising on daily costs, the expense of making
adjustments to existing facilities was considered to be a more afordable recourse. Everyday survival and costs are simply valued higher, even after
the loods. Institutionally led resilience-building eforts need to be mind- ful of this implicit valuation of location-based costs and priorities, partic-
ularly as these might serve as greater ampliiers and dampeners than mere physical location.
Finally, respondents relayed that many locational vulnerabilities were beyond their sphere of inluence including drainage, encroachments
on canals, improperinfrequent de-silting of drains and canals, and in- creasing road height. Some of this can clearly be attributed to the institu-
tional fragmentation that was outlined in an earlier section.