Challenges and Potentials of Post-Disaster Relocation

April 19, 2010 14:21 RPS/AJEDM-Journal
S1793924009000029
Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management

Vol. 1, No. 2 (2009) 199221
c Research Publishing Services

doi:10.3850/S1793924009000029
Challenges and Potentials of Post-Disaster Relocation
Miwa Imuraa and Rajib Shawb

Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Kyoto University,
Yoshida-honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
E-mail: a miwa321@hotmail.co.jp, b shaw@global.mbox.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp
This paper reviews the literature on the global understanding of relocation after disasters,
and develops a conceptual framework to guide future research. The purpose of this paper
is to review of post-disaster relocation studies. The important impacts of relocation and the
stream of relocation studies are introduced and the current approaches and global understanding are discussed. Relocation studies are compared using literature review targeted at
some categories such as (1) settlement planning and land ownership, (2) livelihood options,
and (3) human and social networks. Data were obtained from literature to identify research
articles that are related to disaster, relocation and resettlement. This study provides important data and information on post-disaster response and recovery. Key factors for sustainable
relocation are mentioned in this study. The study flow of relocation and changing awareness
of relocation impact in the disaster affected area are shown.
Keywords: Relocation; Disaster; Recovery.
1. Introduction
Disaster statistics between 1975 and 2005 show that 37% of natural disasters worldwide occurred in Asia. These disasters left and 89% of disaster victims in the
world.1 The number of disasters and victims are expected to rise in the coming
years.
The terms disaster prevention and disaster mitigation are concepts referring
to actions and activities performed before a disaster or an emergency. It is desirable
and extremely useful if experiences and lessons of disaster prevention and disaster mitigation are taken into account in the management of post-disaster recovery
activities. Up until now, the concept of disaster recovery seems somehow obscure.
How the recovery process is implemented, evaluated, and recorded are yet to be
reviewed.37,39
Disaster recovery/rehabilitation was highlighted in the United Nations World
Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe in 2005. As a result, people started to
199
200
S1793924009000029
Miwa Imura and Rajib Shaw
recognize disaster recovery within the disaster preventions action framework

(Table 1). Until 2005, recovery was not one of the disaster strategies. After the
conference, disaster prevention was included in the disaster recovery process.
Disaster recovery was mentioned for the first time at the United Nations
World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Hyogo, Japan in 2005. Moreover, after
the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004, former US President Bill Clinton (2006) pointed
out the importance of disaster recovery and gave ten key propositions on the concept of Building Back Better in the recovery process wherein Good recovery must
leave communities safer by reducing risks and building resilience.
Resettlement has been studied for years but inquiry into the individuals life
after relocation is lacking. Relocation is a rare event18,26 Relocation is unpopular,
as plans to relocate entire communities are costly, mainly because of the need to
acquire alternative locations and provide housing to those who will be resettled.36
Chan pointed out that resettlement/relocation is, therefore, seldom a popular
solution in hazard and disaster management. Blaikie et al. (1994) classified relocation as the worst option as it gives the impression that nothing else can be done
about hazards and hazard-zone inhabitants have to be moved. Thus, relocation has
a negative image in the recovery process.
The UN Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based
Displacement, 1997, Expert Seminar on the Practice of Forced Evictions in Geneva,
pointed out thatAll persons, groups and communities have the right to suitable
resettlement which includes the right to alternative land or housing, which is safe, secure,
accessible, affordable and habitable. Moreover, particular attention must be given to
ensure that indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, the landless, women and children are represented and included in the resettlement planning and implementation processes.9
Boen and Jigyasu (2005), in a study comparing two resettlements after the
1992 Flores Earthquake, revealed that there are enough examples to show that
lack of consideration given to cultural and social concerns serve to reinforce and
sometimes even increase the vulnerability of local communities. They observed
that previous resettlement practices lack cultural and social considerations. Del Re
et al. (2005), urging the necessity for political and social considerations to be taken
into account in resettlement matters, argued that it is important to consider that
we are not only addressing a construction problem, but also a political and social
one, politically convincing the government of a viable alternative to resettlement
and socially making people feel safer if they are to remain on the coast. Nidhiprabha (2007) shared some experiences with housing recovery and reconstruction after the tsunami in Thailand. He promoted the concept build back better
and pointed out that rebuilding on previous land should not be taken lightly and
that it is important to focus on quality so that a better house can be built. Everyone has a right to resettle and relocate. People must have options and choices for
resettlement. Resettlement that does not work for certain people must not be forced
upon others, like resettlement with new community members, for instance. It is a
S1793924009000029
201
Table 1 History of International Disaster Reduction Effort (Adapted from the International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction website).
1987
The united nation Decided The frameworks 10 years plan of internation disaster
reduction on 1990s
1994
world conference on disaster Reduction (yokohama) Yokohama Strategy
1999
The end of The Frameworks 10-year plan of international disaster reduction

[The outcomes]
Enforce of disaster prevention strategy in each country, planning of disaster prevention, etc
Established Asian Disaster Reduction centre (ADRC)
Established United Nation Disaster Assement and coordination (UNDAC)
1999
The United Nation General Assembly [1] established the International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (ISDR)
[Objectives]
to enable communites to become resilient to the effects on natural, technologocal and
environmental hazards, thus reducing the compound risk posed to social and economic
vulnerablities within modern societies; and
to proceed from protection against hazards to the management of risk, by integrating
risk prevention strategies into sustainable developement activities
2002
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction(ISDR)published firstGlobal Review of

Disaster Reduction initiatives-Living with risk- supported by japan Gov.
[Objectives]
Main target is disaster risk prevention, and do not treat of emergency and recovery
Relationship between disaster risk reduction and sustainable developement and
environmental rotection
sharing successful case studies with each countries
Analysis of policy, planning, information management and the way of disaster reduction
2005
World Conference Disaster Reduction(kobe)

[Objectives]
To conclude and report on the review of the Yokohama Strategy and its plan of Action ,
with a view to updating the guiding framework on disaster reduction for the
twenty-first century;
To identify specfic activities aimed at ensuring the implementation of relevant provisions
of the johannesburg plan of implementation of the world summit on sustainable
developement on vulnerability, risk assement and disaster management;
To share good practices and lessons learned to further disaster reduction with in the
context of attaning sustainable developement and to identify gaps and challanges;
To increse awarness of the important of disaster reduction policies, thereby facilitating
and promoting the implementation of those policies;
To increse the reliability the availability of appropriate disaster-related information to the
public and disaster management agencies in all regions as set out in relevant provisions
of the johannesburg plan of implementation.
[specific gaps and challenges]
Governance: organizational, legal and policy frameworks;
Risk identification, assement, monitoring and early warning;
Knowledge management and education;
Reducing underlying risk factors;
Preparedness for effective response and recovery.
202
S1793924009000029
different story in cases of disaster, however. Safety and the individuals health,
from physical to psychological, are the primary considerations that exceptions can
be taken.
There are a lot of issues involving resettlement. It is not clear what the success
factors are. The study of disaster recovery establishes the risk and issues in relocation but the most effective approach is yet to be determined. There is a need to
arrange the stream of relocation studies. Understanding of the current relocation
study will provide insights into the assessment of relocation in the future.
2. When Does Relocation Take Place?
Tercan (2001) defined relocation as the removal to another location due to provision of land or housing, voluntarily or involuntarily. It did not mention relocation
in the disaster recovery context. Menoni and Pesaro (2008) classified relocation
into three categories. The first category is where people are forced to leave their
houses and settlements in the name of public interest such as the construction of
large infrastructures. A second type of forced relocation, though not motivated by
a human setting decision, may occur during a prolonged emergency, as in the case
of a long volcanic crisis or a seism. A third way to intend relocation is reconstruction in another place. This choice may mature in the aftermath of a very severe
disaster, when in any case full reconstruction must be engaged and the decision
to rebuild in the same area or in a safer one must be taken into consideration. The
third category puts strong emphasis on disaster and relocation. In the context of
disaster recovery, relocation has many meanings such as to protect, to accommodate, to retreat, and so on, as a human response to disaster.36
Vasta (2006) showed a Recovery and Reconstruction Tree. Replacement and
Reconstruction Phase started about 100 days after disaster in the tree (Figure 1).
The replacement and reconstruction phase continues for one to two years in
the affected area. During this time, policies and activities will have big impacts
on the survivors. There are two models for disaster recovery, each one having
its own strong support. The first is Welfare Delivery and the second is Development, which is not derived from a disaster planning environment but rather
from ongoing support for capacity development in communities in their struggle
to reduce poverty and replace it with secure and sustainable livelihoods (International Recovery Platform, 2006).
Bayulke (1983) classifies relocation following these situations: (1) when the old
location is subject to a natural hazard, (2) when the old location is completely
destroyed and to move the debris and to make new plotting in the old settlement
is inconvenient for rapid recovery and housing purposes, and (3) when there is a
chance to relocate the settlement to land which belongs to the Government since it
is generally preferred not to have to pay for the land.
Smith (1991) classifies the relocation process into four stages as shown in
Figure 2.
S1793924009000029
Disaster Event
1. Leave post-disaster care and
relief to NGOs and private
households
Emergency Phase
60 days
1. Restore all the public utilities

and civic infrastructure
Restoration Phase
100 days
1. Organize loans from financial

institutions for household and
businesses for reconstruction
2. Facilitate insurance payment
for the insured entities
Replacement &
Reconstruction Phase
1 to 2 years
Beerment and
development period
1. Leave to individual households

and private sector
2. Ask individual households and
private business to obtain insurance
against natural disasters
Figure 1
2 to 5 years
1. Organize response and relief

2. Conduct damage assessment
3. Set up a post-disaster
1. Include economic and business
activities in restoration program
2. Mobilize resources through
government, donors, and insurance
3. Fix entitlement for disaster assistance
4. Seek participation of citizens group
NGOs and private sector.
1. Set up a reconstruction program
2. Provide assistance/subsidy building
materials to households & businesses
3. Institutionalize community participation
4. Provide technical assistance for
disaster-resistant construction
5. Legislate for building code and land
use plan
6. Revive economy through local resource
investment and employment programs
1. Invest in area development programs
2. Build disaster-resistant critical
infrastructure
3. Invest in microzonation, flood plain
management, building code regulations
4. Develop local-level capacity in building
technology and disaster management
Recovery and Reconstruction Tree (Vasta, 2006).
8
RECRUITMENT
FIRST STAGE
9
10
The choice of people to be resettled.
11
TRANSITION
Actual removal of people
Adaptation to the new environment as seen in the
reestablishment of social and economic systems of production
SECOND STAGE
12
13
14
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
THIRD STAGE
Established patterns of production
Grounding them in their new environment
INCORPORATION
Normalized relation with the govenment, other communities
and the outside world in general
15
16
17
FINAL STAGE
18
19
20
Figure 2
The Resettlement ProcessI4 .
203
204
S1793924009000029
3. Who Decides the Relocation Policy?

The purpose of this chapter is to understand relocation and reconstruction policy
in disaster recovery planning and determine if there is an independent policy on
relocation or resettlement for supporting organizations or not.
The World Bank, UN, and other organizations follow an evaluation methodology for estimating the socio-economic and environmental effects of disasters called
Estimation of Damage Assessment and Loss Assessment (DaLa). The methodology
developed by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
(UN-ECLAC) is used to estimate the effects and impacts of natural hazards. DaLa
was developed in the 1970s and since then has been strengthened, simplified, and
customized for application in different areas of the world. It bases the assessment
of disaster impacts on the overall economy of the affected country as well as on
the household level. This provides a basis for defining the needs for recovery and
reconstruction following any disaster. DaLa estimates:
The replacement value of totally or partially destroyed physical assets that must
be included in the reconstruction program
Losses in the flows of the economy that arise from the temporary absence of the
damaged assets
The resulting impact on post-disaster economic performance, with special reference to economic growth, the governments fiscal position and the balance of
payments.
The estimation of the amount of damage in the field by international organizations was made clear. However who decide the relocation or in-situ recovery is
unclear. For example, the national government made a new rule that people cannot
live in a 300 m zone from shoreline in Sri Lanka. Similarly, in Tamil Nadu, India,
the government made a 100 m rule. These reconstruction policies have changed
year after year, but many people receive damages when changing houses, land or
life styles. Relocation policy has been affected by political considerations.
4. Is Relocation a Negative Policy in Disaster Recovery?

The global understanding on relocation/resettlement policy of United Nations
(UN) organizations and international non-government organizations (INGOs) are
discussed in this section. These organizations have worked and supported disaster
affected areas. There are two purposes of this section: one is to recognize the position of relocation/resettlement policy in disaster recovery strategy and the second
is to understand relocation views and implementation in each organization.
S1793924009000029
205
4.1. Perspectives of International Organizations

In the international debate around resettlement, there are two major streams of
arguments by critics of resettlement. The first denies in principle the acceptability of any involuntary resettlement and argues that no development program that
entails resettlement should be undertaken. The second criticizes the quality of specific resettlement operations.
The World Bank has a paper on resettlement and development policy. In the
paper, resettlement studies were discussed in development projects. The main
message of the World Bank is that: it is essential to handle the difficult process of
resettlement equitably and efficiently; if involuntary resettlement is mismanaged,
the displaced people will suffer unjustifiably. One of the chapters, The Nature
of Involuntary Resettlement and the Banks Policy, says that If addressed with
political commitment, adequate financial and institutional resources, and participatory
execution, the formidable task of population relocation may result in beneficial development.It noted the economic and social disruption and the risk of impoverishment
by resettlement. The reasons for avoiding or reducing forced displacements are
social, economic, ethnical, and cultural. The main risk arising from forced displacement is in the welfare of the affected people.
The World Banks policy on involuntary resettlement was prepared in 1979
and issued in early 1980. Before the policy was adopted, many projects with
involuntary resettlement issues had been dealt with on a case by case basis. Based
on feedback and lessons from field experience, the formulation of the Banks
resettlement policy has evolved steadily through several rounds of improvements.
Figure 3 shows key steps in the evolution of the Banks resettlement policy.
1980 The World Bank issues its initial resettlement policy, prepared in 1979, entitled
Social Issues Associated with Involuntary Resettlement in Bank-Financed Projects
(OMS 2.33)
1986: An in-house policy and operational review of how the resettlement guidelines
were applied makes new recommendations, adopted by management and issued
formally as an Operations Policy Note (OPN 10.08). This second policy statement
strengthened the 1980 guidelines by emphasizing that every project with resettlement
must develop a new productive base for resettles.
1988: Both policy documnets are intergrated into one detailed policy-cum-technical
Bank paper. For the first time, the Bank went public with its resettlement policy.
(World Bank Technical Paper No. 80)
1990: The resettlement policy was revised and reissued as Operational Directive 4.30:
Involuntary Resettlement (World Bank, 1990)
Figure 3 Key steps in the evolution of the Banks resettlement policy (Source: Environment Development Papers, The World Bank)
206
S1793924009000029
The basic elements of the Banks resettlement policy are:

Involuntary displacement should be avoided or minimized whenever feasible
Where displacement is unavoidable, the objective of Bank policy is to assist displaced persons in their efforts to improve, or at least restore, former living standards and earning capacity.
Compensated, share in project benefits, and assisted in the transfer and in the
transition period by displaced persons.
Minimizing the distance between departure and relocation sites
Resettlers and hosts participation in planning resettlement
Viable settlement systems equipped with infrastructure and services
Host communities should be assisted to overcome possible adverse social and
environmental effects from increased population density
Informal customary rights of indigenous people, ethnic minorities, pastoralists,
and other groups
In 19861993, the Bank has significantly improved its performance in the
implementation of the first principle of the resettlement policy which is to avoid
resettlement or reduce its magnitude whenever feasible, and in the last several
years the concern for avoiding or reducing resettlement is increasing in the Banks
work culture, when the likelihood of displacement is identified early. However
project proposals and feasibility studies, many prepared by respected consulting
firms, are too often too permissive of displacements.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) policy is connected
to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the report named A Global
Report Reducing Disaster Risk (2004) made mention of factoring risk into disaster recovery and reconstruction.
Development appraisal and decision making tools, and monitoring programs that incorporate disaster risk management are needed to mainstream prospective disaster risk
management. The argument made for mainstreaming disaster risk management is doubly
important during reconstruction following disaster events.
In this report, UNDP pointed out the importance of disaster recovery. But it is
not focused on relocation or resettlement within a disaster recovery program. It is
inclined to support development with recovery.
In the Asian Development Bank (ADB)s policy (1995) on Involuntary Resettlement, the hard-core poor were accorded special rights and grants to reduce their
poverty during and beyond the resettlement process.
In the Hyogo Framework for Action 20052015, ISDR does not refer to relocation or resettlement. In its key activities on social and economic development
practices, they used one word, displacement. Endeavor to ensure, as appropriate,
that programs for displaced persons do not increase risk and vulnerability to hazards.
However it did not elaborate on relocation/resettlement after disaster.
S1793924009000029
207
Relocation and resettlement policy in international organizations are taken as

more of a development policy than a disaster recovery policy. The organizations
opinion is that relocation has some positive influence such as moving people to
safe and less vulnerable place without disaster risks, which leads to reducing
poverty. It is clear that organizations apply development policy of relocation to
disaster recovery process.
4.2. Academic Perspective

Academic studies give some conclusions on relocation after disaster. In this section,
the theory and reality of relocation after disaster will be discussed. This section will
show the current stream and thinking in relocation strategy. Relocation issues and
case studies will be mentioned in another section.
Berke et al. (1993) pointed out two opportunities for relocation. One is that the
recovery period offers an opportunity to strengthen local organizational capacity
to facilitate economic, social, and physical development long after the disaster. Second is to alter physical development patterns to reduce future hazard vulnerability.
These positive factors are in the policy, but on the other hand, many people pointed
out some relocation issues. After the flood disaster in Malaysia, Chan (1995) said
that relocation is unpopular, as plans to relocate entire communities are costly,
mainly because of the need to acquire alternative locations and the position of
housing for those resettled. Chan insisted that the biggest problem with relocation is that the majority of resettled people tend to return to their original settlement. It needs the positive relocation tool for flood disaster mitigation. The key
factor of successful relocation was dependent on the Kampong community people
in his case study. Blaikie et al. (1994) classified relocation as the worst option as
it gives the impression that nothing else can be done about hazards and hazardzone inhabitants have to be moved. Their research has demonstrated that relocation is an undesirable response to hazards and that its success rate is low. People
often resist relocation because it threatens their social and cultural identity, which
is strongly place-oriented.4,13,14 Many researchers have discussed the sustainability of the community in the relocated area. Some people pointed out the positive
factors of relocation but most of the opinions are on the negative side.
Disasters and the experience of resettlement have increased the level of expectations of the people and brought about personal and political empowerment.25
Rodriguezet al. (2006) pointed out the extent to which relocation of communities
and industries was possible when land acquisition, community acceptance, and
industry feasibility were in question. Relocation initiatives must take into consideration the impact that such movements will have on the communities social, economic, cultural, and political activities. Ye (2002) points out the strict formalities in
making decisions about relocation of villages and towns. Recently, the necessity of
victims joining in decision making has become critical.
208
S1793924009000029
From the academics viewpoint, relocation in disaster recovery is a recognized

negative activity which international organizations do not fully understand. However, most of the organizations relocation strategy has a development focus,
therefore, it is not clear how to evaluate relocation in disaster recovery.
5. What Is Considered Success OR Failure In Relocation?

Some opinions on relocation in answer to the above question are shown. After a
disaster recovery project, the relocation project will be assessed for its success or
failure. What is a successful relocation, and what is a failed relocation? First, some
factors of successful relocation are discussed.
Post-disaster resettlement findings recommend proximity to employment
and social services as important for a successful project.45 New resettlements
are expanding socio-cultural systems whose collective needs will increase over
time(Michael, 1988).
Successful resettlement schemes should effect a transfer of responsibility from
settlement agencies to the settlers themselves(Michael, 1988). A strong leadership
will be required. The high level of organization, the result of dynamic internal leaders and outside assistance, is based on the participation of all community members
and has been a key factor in the success of the project.4
Sinha and Srivastava (2006) introduced the case study of Gujarat earthquake
and the recovery process in the area especially on housing assistance packages
announced in record time with a choice of relocation or in-situ reconstruction to be
taken by the village community. The recovery process can be an opportunity for
incorporating disaster risk reduction mechanisms into post-disaster development
planning.
Some factors of failed relocation are discussed next. In Oliver-Smith (1991), the
refusal and abandonment of the site can be safely interpreted as failure of resettlement projects. In addition, government forced relocation efforts are generally
doomed to fail.
Smith (1992) has also shown that urban relocation within a limited distance has
a lesser degree of success as the relocated settlement will be hit again by the same
hazard. The biggest problem with relocation is that the majority of resettled people
tend to return to their original settlement. A similar problem occurred in the Iwate
prefecture of Japan. After a tsunami, the village people relocated to the mountain
side, but soon people returned to their previous land because their livelihood was
in fisheries. Thereafter, the next tsunami affected them again.42
Rofi et al. (2006) pointed out in their study in Indonesia after the Indian Ocean
Tsunami that the success of relocation programs should be determined not in terms
of speed but in relation to their capacity to promote community participation in
the reconstruction process as well as to restore and improve on pre-existing conditions associated with health, life and livelihood. Another factor is the choice of
S1793924009000029
209
recovery site. Poor choice of site for resettlement is one of the most frequently
mentioned causes of resettlement failure,4 and social factors such as distance from
kin or from the old village, in cases where partial resettlement is attempted, are
also cited as major factors in the failure of new villages (Kronenburger, 1984) 21,45
(Razani, 1984).
Resettlement simply fails because people refuse to be relocated, or they abandon new sites in favor of migration, or they repopulate old sites regardless of the
danger, largely for the economic advantages which these locations afforded people
in their traditional contexts.4
Coburnet al. (1984) shows three factors that are crucial in determining the success or failure of a resettlement project as follows: (a) the physical environment of
the new settlement, (b) the relationship to the old village and (c) the capacity of the
community to develop itself.
Other key factors are relocation distance, governance and leadership, occupation, site selection and so on. If the researcher evaluates from an organizational
perspective, the period of living in the new house is important. It is connected to
the sustainability of the new community. However, there is little evaluation from
the community or peoples perspective.
6. Relocation Case Studies
In this section, relocation types and case studies will be described, which will focus
on peoples living conditions in the new area.
6.1. Relocation Types (Resettlement and Migration)
Lieber (1977)uses the general term resettlement to refer to a process by which a number of homogenous people from one locale come to live together in a different locale. In the
present study, the term relocation is used to refer to the permanent (or long-term)
movement of a community (or a significant part of it) from one location to another.
This is distinct from the movement of individuals away from an origin to a variety
of destinations. It infers that the community stays together at the destination in
a social form that has some similarities to the community of origin. In the Pacific
Island region most communities are in the form of rural (and some urban) villages. In urban areas there are often distinct communities (often built around the
place of origin of the individuals) although some suburbs exhibit lower levels of
community cohesion. In the rural context, which is the basis for this study, village
communities may be seen as a group of people connected by kinship and linked
by birthright and/or kinship to local land and sea resources (after Hunnam, 2002).
As noted, community relocation is considered to be different from migration
which is usually seen as based on a series of individual or family decisions. In
some cases migrants may, over time, re-establish a community similar to the place
of origin, but the original community remains. In many occasions migrants settle
210
S1793924009000029
in new communities that at best would only loosely resemble their home village
(Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research, 2005).
6.2. Classification of Relocation Issues
6.2.1. Settlement Planning and Land Ownership
An earthquake of magnitude 7.3 on the Richter scale occurred in Central Taiwan on
September 21,1999. It was later aptly called the 921 Chi-Chi Earthquake because of
the place and date of occurrence. Reported casualties were 2,507 dead and about
11,300 injured. The houses of 105,000 households incurred heavy damages, yet
housing reconstruction started late and was very slow. Shao and Murosaki (2001)
in their evaluation study described the problems of relocating the village.
The primary problem was that the victims did not own the land in their place of
residence prior to the disaster. Major obstructions included the difficulty of finding
new lands and the difficulty of the process of changing landowners. On the other
hand, the Chi-Chi earthquake disaster exhibited a complete bottom-up system of
community recovery. The process included a community recovery plan wherein
recovery committees composed of a professional team, residents, and government
officials were established to plan and execute the recovery process.
Sinha and Srivastava (2006) pointed out the importance in resettlement planning of a good understanding of the local socio-economic, cultural structures of the
region and political structure of the affected country. In addition, the involvement
of the local communities, the incorporation of their needs, should be emphasized
in capacity building of the community and increasing its economic self-sufficiency.
Especially focusing on relocation distance, Nese (2008) showed a case study about
earthquake recovery in Turkey in 2000. Reasons for the refusal to relocate can be
listed as distance between the new settlements and old land/town, lack of proper
access, uncomfortable situation for animals, unsuitable design of new house, and
difficulty in making relationships with contractors.
Another problem is political regulation. The Sri Lanka Public Security Ministry announced the relocation of its coastal communities, estimated at 800,000.
Building restrictions have been proposed, prohibiting construction within 100m
from the sea in the southwest or 200m in the northeast. However, this policy
holds a high social, cultural, environmental, and economic cost. The Tsunami Safer
House shows that it is possible to achieve a more structurally, environmentally,
and financially efficient design using the local construction methods and materials.
Del Re et al. (2005) concluded that it is important to consider not only addressing
a construction problem, but also a political and social way of convincing the government of a viable alternative to resettlement and making people feel safer if they
are to remain on the coast.
Badri et al. (2006) collected questionnaire data from 194 relocated households
11 years after the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran. It was concluded that many
resettlement and policy plans necessitated a positive development change.
S1793924009000029
211
In an urban areas experience, Bangladesh has a very dense population of about

1,000 persons per square kilometer. All lands, even that along the unstable rivers,
are occupied and the population pressure permanently forces people to settle in
unstable flood and erosion prone environments. Consequently, land acquisition
and resettlement are problematic as new land for resettlement is not readily available (Ragsdale et al., 2009).
There are many issues such as land acquisition, recovery planning, political
regulation, and population of the area. Especially, land ownership or relocation
and resettlement plan are offered by the government. There is political empowerment in these relocation processes. In the case study of Bangladesh, the urban
areas disaster and relocation possibility was low and not realistic.
6.2.2. Livelihood Options

The case of Papua New Guinea above describes the impact on fishermen. The tidal
wave generated by a magnitude 7.0 earthquake in the northwest of Papua New
Guinea on July 17, 1998 left 2,182 people dead. Earthquakes are uncommon in
this region. They come only once in 100 years. This episode caught everyone by
surprise. All the people in the affected area chose to move out voluntarily. The
decision to relocate was a consensus among the residents who feared experiencing
another tsunami, rather than a government directive. Makiet al. (1999) described
the difficulty of fishermen to adapt to a new life far from the coast. The main problem was how to establish a livelihood in the new place. It is usually the case that
life becomes difficult when a resident has to leave an occupation that is going so
well.
There is a case study in the Philippines which shows the effect on farmers. A
devastating landslide struck Barangay Guinsaugon on February 17, 2006, near the
town of St. Bernard in Southern Leyte province in the Philippines. The massive
landslide, said to have been caused by ten days of continuous heavy rains and
the geology of the area, buried the whole village of Guinsaugon. 154 people were
confirmed dead and approximately 1,000 were reported missing. The government
recommended resettlement in six regions for the 2,500 residents affected by the
disaster. One resettlement was a great distance from the farmland about 8 km.
This was difficult for many of the victims who make their living in agriculture.
Yamori et al. (2006) made a study about resettlements after the Southern Leyte
disaster to specifically look at the responses of support organizations, i.e. national
government, municipal government, NGOs, civic society, and the social dimensions of disaster. They conducted a comparative study on two resettlements, one
initiated by the municipality and another initiated by the Red Cross. Vocational
skills training was offered for a year to support livelihood change. As with resettlements done in the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and the 1991 Leyte Floods, the Red
Cross took a disaster prevention view in the resettlement process. However, the
212
S1793924009000029
resettlement executed by the municipality resulted to some people going back to

their former residences and daring to run the risk because livelihood is a problem
or the change in occupation is difficult. Problems relating to the resettlement and
the change in occupation were common issues in the resettlement. In the Red
Cross-supported resettlement, the people were able to work on their old farmland
again because the resettlement was located close to their old place of residence.
Some researchers pointed out complex issues with regard to economic impacts.
Hutton et al. (2004) studied the economic and social adaptation among riverbank erosion-induced displacements in Bangladesh. They pointed out that the
vulnerability of the poor in Bangladesh is associated with deeply entrenched
socio-economic inequities. The finding reveals that the most vulnerable segments
of society must be integrated into the disaster-management process, not only
in terms of resource allocation, but also in the planning and decision-making
processes. After the Tangshan Earthquake in 1976, the new village is separated
from original settlement by a distance of 25km.

Many problems arose with the relocation as people were not willing to relocate due to lack of good schools and
hospitals and difficulties in getting jobs for their spouses.51
Generally, relocation has affected primary sectors such as fisheries and agriculture. For the local people, the priority in the choice of location for housing depends
more on economic activity than safety. In addition, economic losses are not only
incurred by the head of the family but also by the spouse and children. In developing country, most of couples without kids have some jobs both of them therefore,
economic support for the head of the family is not enough to support their life.
6.2.3. Human and Social Networks
Flores Island in Indonesia is a long, narrow island extending from the east to the
west with a width and length of 1,270 kilometers and 360 kilometers respectively. It
has a population of approximately 1.5 million people. An earthquake of magnitude
7.5 occurred in Flores Island on December 12, 1992 causing a tsunami which left an
estimated 1,700 people dead in the coastal areas. Maki et al. (2003) made a study to
examine the resettlement condition 8 years after the disaster particularly to find out
if people remained in the resettlement and the reasons behind their decision to stay.
Babi, one of the affected areas, was made a no trespassing zone by the government
right after the disaster for fear of another tsunami. The people agreed to resettle
four months later. Families living nearest the sea prior to the disaster were given
the priority to build closest to the sea in the resettlement area. In the study survey,
results show that even though it was prohibited, many of the villagers went back
to their previous villages.
After the 921 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) Earthquake, a planned reconstruction and
resettlement process took place in the affected area. It included five important
points as follows: (a) a bottom-up approach to encourage active participation by
local residents, (b) preservation of local cultural features, (c) making use of the new
S1793924009000029
213
topography and surface created by the earthquake, (d) developing green building practices, promoting recycling of resources, and strengthening environmental
protection, and (e) building a high-quality living environment and providing all
necessary public infrastructure, services and disaster-refuge facilities. In the past,
the Taiwanese government mostly focused its attention on the science and technological aspects of earthquake risk management. However, the human dimensions
of earthquake risk management have mostly been ignored.17
In the Indian Ocean Tsunami recovery, much relocation took place with the support of international organizations. In one relocated village, all the affected people
were gathered by the government and the Sri Lanka Red Cross, which also collaborated with the Spanish Red Cross. Most of them came from the same community
called God Shell Road. Only two households came from a different village. The
Red Cross decided to organize the new community by assembling people from the
same community because they have learned their lessons on mixed resettlement.
For example, it is recognized that people do return to the previous community
for reasons such as distance to the workplace, inconveniences brought by a new
way of life, and the difficulty of creating relationships with neighbors. It is primarily for this reason that the Red Cross decided to gather resettlement families
from the same village so as to prevent people from leaving the new community.
In the Kalutara district, a local NGO named Sarvodaya supported a relocation and
reconstruction project called eco-village. Relocated people were gathered from
eight different villages, and they had to start new lives. At first, Sarvodaya worried about the human relationships in the new community. However, this community undertook eco-activities which became communal activities in the new land. It
was realized that it was possible for people to establish new relationships through
common activities. This experience shows the possibility of a new relocation style
where relocated people are gathered from different communities.33
Boen and Jigyasu (2005) pointed out that relocation involves movement of
communities and not only of families and peoples. It will be give the problem
of moving as a way of life to affected people. However, specific and actual
issues of the cultural damage by relocation are unclear. In addition, psychological issues also exist. Najarianet al. (1988) studied health problems in relocation
sites after the earthquake in Armenia in 1988. They pointed out that relocation
after a disaster appears to be associated more with risk of depression than with
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in situations where recovery is delayed following the trauma. But that mental problems occurred following relocation or the
disaster itself is disputable.
Relocated people choose their lifestyle and effect to adapt to the new style.
Relocation is not only about housing and land, but also about lifestyle. After
relocation, some people have to establish new relationships with unknown people.
When evaluating the communitys condition, human relationships will influence
the result. Not all relocation has negative impact. Some relocation suggests new
relocation style and process.
214
S1793924009000029
7. Why Relocation is Refused?

Resettlement is often considered the best option to reduce risk from further disasters. The social consequences of resettlement are often underestimated by decision
makers in the post-disaster reconstruction field. But on the other hand, resettlement is rarely successful for a variety of reasons such as loss of livelihood, impoverishment, social and cultural alienation, increased morbidity, and loss of access
to common property resources19 From the organizations view, relocation costs
are high because of land preparation, housing, and compensation. Menoni and
Pesaro (2008) summarized some relocation costs such as:
relocation feasibility studies,

project design and expert advice,
public support activities (information, advice and consensus building),
buildings acquisition,
abandoned buildings demolition,
re-naturalization of abandoned areas,
compensation for loss of environmental quality in resettlement sites, and
general social and private costs related to change.
Nese (2008) concluded that it can be said that new settlements are refused due
to the following failures in post-disaster reconstruction projects:
Quick decisions,
Lack of user participation in early decision-making process,
Inadequate site-selection criteria (distance from livelihood and social networks),
Lack of interdisciplinary work during site-selection,
Lack of consideration of the lifestyle of the beneficiaries,
Lack of guidance to beneficiaries during the construction phase of houses
Socio-culturally inappropriate settlement layouts
Involuntary resettlement often involves removal from an environment in which

the society has evolved centuries old patterns of adaptation. This relationship is
based on economic, political or social factors or a combination of any or all three.
For these reasons, many researchers consider resettlement as something to be
avoided or minimized in development projects if at all possible.4 Partridge (1989)
pointed out that from the perspective of displaced people, forced resettlement is
always a disaster.
For support organizations, the cost and acquisition of land are important issues.
On the other hand, the change in life style is a factor for people to refuse relocation.
S1793924009000029
215
8. What is Important in Relocation?

What are the important factors if the government has to choose relocation after a
disaster?
The World Bank policy explains that resettlement should form an integral part
of project design and should take into account a number of policy considerations,
including (a) avoiding or minimizing resettlement where feasible, (b) developing
resettlement plans where resettlement is unavoidable, and that such plans should
include compensation for losses at full replacement cost, as well as assistance and
support with the move, (c) community participation in planning and implementing resettlement, (d) social and economic integration of the resettlers into the host
communities, and (e) provision of land, housing, infrastructure and other compensation to the adversely affected population. From case studies, the following eight
factors are described for successful resettlement:
First, affected communities participate in critical resettlement and implementation
decisions (site selection, identification of basic needs, settlement planning, housing
designs, and implementation).4,19,49
Second, it is socially and economically suitable. Livelihoods are not site-specific
nor are they disrupted by resettlement. Relocation has to consider livelihoods such
as fisheries or agriculture12,19,43 (Michael, 1988;).
Third is availability of basic infrastructure services. Water, public transport, health
services, markets, and school are accessible and affordable12,19 (Michael, 1988).
Fourth, people are able to bring with them items of high emotional, spiritual, or
cultural value (house doors, wooden frames, etc.). In some areas, religious items
have a strong meaning. For example, a temple or mosque is the peoples gathering
venue in the community.19,33 Emotional, spiritual, and cultural attachment to the
old site should not be excessively high.
Fifth, people belonging to the same community are resettled together to a new
site.12,19 When thinking about relocated life, there are some issues such as making new relationships between resettlers and host community members. Therefore
some researchers point out the necessity that the same community is to be resettled together. However it is dependent on the site as a case study also shows that
people wish to relocate with different community members.33
Sixth, housing designs, settlement layouts, natural habitat, and community facilities conform to a communitys way of life(Nese,2008).12,19
Seventh, special attention should be given to the social and personal needs of the
relocated and social networks need to be preserved.43,49
And eighth, relocation costs but benefits. Relocation benefits are improvement
of environmental quality in abandoned areas, reduction of rescue costs, and
216
S1793924009000029
reduction of other disaster mitigation expenses, reduction of reconstruction costs,

reduction of systemic losses, and reduction of costs related to social discomfort
caused by emergencies.43
If the government or the people decide on the relocation, the next problem will
be the acquisition of new land. In deciding on the new land, Ye and Okada (2002)
pointed out the following requirements that should be considered in the selection
of the new site: (1) with higher ground elevation and smooth terrain, (2) with stable
subsoil and its bearing capacity is high enough, (3) the arrangement of drainage
system is easy, (4) away from areas near the mainstream of the flood water and
with concentration of floating debris, and (5) prohibition of construction at the site
nearby the assigned flood-diversion sluices. There are many important points for
relocation. This is why it has incurred a negative image. On the other hand, if the
decision maker considers these points and issues on relocation, they are not too
difficult to implement.
9. Discussion
Relocation is one of the important pillars of disaster recovery. However, it is commonly undertaken and studied from the perspective of the government and support organizations. There are some gaps in the understanding of relocation and life
after relocation in the new land between support organizations and the relocated
people. Relocation sometimes cannot be avoided after a natural disaster because of
physical, environmental, and demographic reasons. Therefore, relocation should
be viewed positively in the disaster recovery process. If relocation can be undertaken successfully, it will be useful in the re-making of new communities in relocated areas. It has the possibility of changing from a negative to a positive strategy.
There are many problems about relocation such as economical (livelihoods, relocation costs and benefits), political (peoples participation), social (relationships with
new members and host community people), and cultural (culture, religion, emotional attachment to original site). These issues are dependent on each affected
site, and depend on people and the region, their lifestyles and political views. The
decision maker has to consider the support of international and local organizations
in the affected areas and long term evaluation of relocated community and people
will be essential. Additionally, the support organizations point out the importance
to consider rehabilitation in the process of relocation.
In these days, relocation has been undertaken by support organizations and
through the initiative of governments. Firstly, it is separated in two ways, compulsory relocation and voluntary relocation. It has been made effective by political
power. Then after that, decision-maker had to choose some options as the positive impacts of relocation in affected peoples life is positive considered. Examples
of these options are based in the relocation style, way, scale, economic level, cost,
and so on. However, there are many problems and challenges in the relocation
S1793924009000029
,QLWLDWLYH
Compulsory
Voluntary
Biggerthanoriginal
community
Smallerthanoriginal
community
Independent
6W\OH
Group
Decentralize
Individual
:D\
Relocatewith
completesamegroup
Relocatewith
mixturegroup
Relocatewith
mixtureindividual
$FFHVV
,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
Becomebetter
(development)
Becomebad
Nochange(Recovery)
2FFXSDWLRQ
Nochangeofincome
Changeofincome
Allaid
Someofaid
6FDOH
SOCIAL
FACTORS
ECONOMICAL
FACTORS
&RVW
CULTURALFACTORS
,QIOXHQFH
5HPDNLQJDQHZFRPPXQLW\
&LUFXODWLRQRIFRPPXQLW\
PHPEHUV
Whatisasuccessful relocationforpeople?
POLITICAL
FACTORS
Supportorganizationsevaluatetherelocationafterproject.
DISASTER
217
'URSRXWIURPQHZ
FRPPXQLW\
Figure 4 Conceptual diagram of factors affecting post-disaster relocation.
process (Figure 4), for instance many projects include development based on
build back better policies. It has been evaluated by support organizations, but
there are low considerations about cultural issues within the relocation process.
After relocation, there are some effects in the new land such as people remaking a
new community, circulation of community members or drop out from new community etc. There is no clear answer whether these cases generated negative impacts for relocated people or not. Usually, it was taken place from one side as support organization view. One of the issues of relocation is the lack of evaluation
of relocation/resettlement by relocated people. Therefore, long term evaluation by
researchers is necessary for positive relocation policy. However, two issues on relocation still remain unanswered: what is successful relocation for people, and what
are the cultural factors that affect relocation. These are shown as dashed line in
Figure 4.
This study provides some important points for a positive view on relocation
after a disaster in the following:
(1) Incorporation of communitys perspectives in the relocation program and
policy
(2) Thematic relocation for sustainable relocation as entry point and binding force,
when relocations take place with different community members
218
S1793924009000029
(3) Consideration of micro-variation for relocation decision-maker

(4) Long-term observation and evaluation
Acknowledgment
The first author acknowledges the support of the Japan Society for Promotion of
Science (JSPS) Fellowship in conducting this research. Support and advice from
Sarvodaya (Sri Lanka) and University of Madras (India) are highly appreciated.
References
1. ADRC, Hyogo Framework for Action 20052015: Building the Resilience of Nations and
Communities to Disasters, World Comference on Disaster Reduction, 1822 January
2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction).
2. A Global Report Reducing Disaster Risk a Challenge for Development, United Nations
Development Programme (2004).
3. A. K. Sinha and S. Srivastava, Comparative Study on Recovery & Reconstruction, GFDR
Note (2006).
4. A. Oliver-Smith, Here There is Life: The Social and Cultural Dynamics of Successful
Resistance to Resettlement in Postdisaster Peru: In Involuntary Migration and Resettlement: The Problems and Responses of Dislocated People, edited by A. Hansen and
A, Oliver-Smith, Boulder, Co: Westview Press. pp. 85103 (1982).
5. A. Oliver-Smith, Successes and Failures in Post-Disaster Resettlement, Disasters, 15(1),
1223 (1991).
6. A. Rofi, S. Doocy and C. Robinson, Tsunami mortality and displacement in Ache
province, Indonesia, Disasters, 30(3), 340350 (2006).
7. Asian Development Bank, Involuntary Resettlement, August (1995).
8. A.W. Coburn, J. D. L. Leslie and A. Tabban, Reconstruction and Resettlement 11 Years
Later: A Case Study of Bingol Province, Eastern Turkey. In Schupisser, S. and Studer,
J. (Eds.) Earthquake Relief in Less Industrialized Areas. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 4958 (1984).
9. B. J. Batra and S. Chaudhry, International Human Rights Standards on Post-disaster
Resettlement and Rehabilitation, Habitat International Coalition Housing and Land
Rights Network (HIC-HLRN) and Peoples Movement for Human Rights Learning
(PDHRE) (2005).
10. B. Nidhiprabha, Adjustment and Recovery in Thailand Two Years after the Tsunami,
ADB Institute Discussion Paper No. 72 (2007).
11. B. Tercan, Post Earthquake Relocation Process in Yalova, Unpublished masters thesis,
METU, Ankara (2001).
12. Community Relocation as an Option for Adaptation to the Effects of Climate Change
and Climate Variability in Pacific Island Countries (PICs), Final report for APN project
2005-14-NSY-Campbell, Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (2005).
13. C. S. Aneshensel, and J. D. Stone, Stress and Depression: A Test of the Buffering Model
of Social Support, Archives of General Psychiatry 39, 13921396 (1982).
14. D. Blazer, Social Support and Mortality in the Elderly Community Sample of Older
Adults, The Gerontologist 115, 684694 (1982).
S1793924009000029
219
15. D. Del Re, L. Berrios, W. Nicolino and C. Ratti, Resettlement or Resilience? the Tsunami
safe(r) Project, International Symposium Disaster Reduction on Coasts Scientific Sustainable Holistic Accessible, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (2005).
16. D. Hutton and C. E. Haque, Human Vulnerability, Dislocation and Resettlement: Adaptation Processes of River-bank Erosion-induced Displacees in Bangladesh, Disasters
28(1), 4162 (2004).
17. D. Shaw, Emergency Relief Measures and Rehabilitation Policies in the Aftermath of the
921 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) Earthquake, EuroConference on Global Change and Catastrophe
Risk Management: Earthquake Risks in Europe, IIASA, Luxemburg, Austria, July 69
(2000).
18. D. S. Mileti and E. Passerini, A Social Explanation of Urban Relocation After Earthquakes, International journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 14, 97110 (1996).
19. Environmental Development Papers (Paper No. 32), Resettlement and Development
The Bankwide Review of Projects Involving Involuntary Resettlement 19861993, The
World Bank (1996).
20. Hand Book of Social, Economic and Environmental affected impact in disaster, Japan
International Cooperation Agency Research Institute (2003).
21. H. Lamping, The Use of Indigenous Sources for Post-Disaster Housing-Some Geographical Aspects. In Schupisser, S. and Studer, J. (eds.) Earthquake Relief in Less
Industrialized Areas. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 109114 (1984).
22. H. Rodriguez, T. Wachtendorf, J. Kandra, H. Trainor, A snapshot of the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami: societal impacts and consequences, Disaster Prevention and Management,
15(1), 163177 (2006).
23. I. Davis, Learning from Disaster Recovery-Guidance for Decision Makers-, International Recovery Platform (IRP), (2006).
24. India Post Tsunami Recovery Programme Preliminary Damage and Needs Assessment,
Asian Development Bank, United Nations and World Bank, New Delhi, India, March
8, (2006).
25. J. K. Glittenburg, Reconstruction in Four Urban Post Disaster Settlements. In Bates,
F.L. (Ed.) Recovery, Change and Development: A longitudinal Study of the 1976
Guatemalan Eathquake, Vol. 2, The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia, pp. 634707
(1982).
26. J. L. Garrison, Mental Health Implications of Disaster Relocation in the United States: A
Review of the Literature, International journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 3, 4965
(1985).
27. K. J. Walters, The Reconstruction of Darwin After Cyclone Tracy, Disasters 2 5968
(1978).
28. K. Vasta, Earthquake Reconstruction in Maharashtra, India: Impacton Assets, Income,
Participation and Equity, (2006).
29. K. Yamori, M. Yokomatsu, Y. Okumura, H. Shiroshita and Y. Kawata, Social responses
and recovery processes in the 2006 Landslide Disaster in Southern Leyte, Philippines
[in Japanese], Journal of Japan Society for Natural Disaster Science, 25(1), 99111 ( 2006).
30. L. M. Najarian, A. K. Goenjian, D. Pelcovitz, F. Mandel, and B. Najarian, The Effect of
Relocation After a Natural Disaster, Journal of Traumatic Stress, 4(3), 511526 (2001).
31. M. Cernea, Involuntary Resettlement in Development Projects. The World Bank,
Washington DC. (1988).
32. M. D. Lieber, Ed. (1977). Exiles and Migrants in Oceania. Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania Monograph Series. Honolulu, The University Press of Hawaii.
33. M. Imura, Role of Eco-village in Post-disaster Relocation: Case Study from Sri Lanka,
Master Thesis, Kyoto University, Japan (2008).
220
S1793924009000029
34. N. Maki, I. Hayashi and H. Hayashi, Disaster Management in the Papua New Guinea
Tsunami Disaster on 17 July, 1998; Recovery process of the social flows and stocks from
disaster., Journal of Social Safety Science, 1, 195200 (1999).
35. N. Maki, K. Miura, M. Kobayashi and H. Hayashi, Relocation Process at Resettlement
Site After 1992 Flores Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster [in Japanese] Journal of Architecture Planning and Environmental Engineering, 566, 18 (2003).
36. N. W. Chan, Flood disaster management in Malaysia: an evaluation of the effectiveness
of government resettlement schemes, Disaster Prevention and Management, 4(4), 2229
(1995).
37. O. Murao, Reconstruction Process Based on the Spatial Reconstruction Model in
Chi-Chi Area After the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Journal of architecture and planning,
607, 95102 (2006).
38. P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, I Davis and B. Wisner, At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters, Routledge, London (1994).
39. R. B. Olshansky (2005), How do Communities Recover from Disaster? A Review of
Current Knowledge and an Agenda for Future Research, (46th Annual Conference of
the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Kansas City, 2005).
40. S. A. Badri, A. Asgary, A. R. Eftekhari and J. Levy, Post-disaster resettlement, development and change: a case study of the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran, Disasters 30(4),
451468 (2006).
41. S. Cobb, Social Support and Health Through the Life Course, Aging from Birth to Death:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by M. W. Riley. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp.
93106 (1979).
42. S. Koshimura, Relocation to higher land and land adjustment policy as a part of tsunami
disaster mitigation (in Japanese), Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 25(2), 142145 (2006).
43. S. Manoni and G. Pesaro, Is relocation a good answer to prevent risk? Criteria to help
decision makers choose candidates for relocation in areas exposed to high hydro geological hazards, Disaster Prevention and Management, 17(1), 3353 (2008).
44. T. Boen and R. Jigyasu, Cultural Considerations for Post Disaster Reconstruction PostTsunami Challenges, UNDP Conference (2005). UNDRO (1982) Shelter After Disaster.
United Nations, New York.
45. The World Bank, To Resettle or Not to Resettle: In Handbook for Post-Disaster Housing
and Community Reconstruction, Abhas K. Jha (edt), Produced by the World Bank with
support of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (2009).
46. W. J. Clinton, Key Propositions for Building Back Better, Office of the un SecretaryGenerals Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery (2006).
47. P. R. Berke, J. Kartez and D. Wenger, Recovery after Disaster: Achieving Sustainable
Development, Mitigation and Equity, Disaster, 17(2), (1993).
48. R. W. Perry and M. K. Lindell, Principles for Managing Community Relocation as a
Hazarrd Mitigation Measure, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 5(1),
4959 (1997).
49. Shao P.c and Murosaki Y. Post-Quake Housing Reconstruction for Taiwan Earthquake:
Real state of housing reconstruction after one and half year (2001).
50. Y. Ye and N. Okada, Integrated Relief and Reconstruction Management Fllowing a
Natural Disaster, Second Annual IIASA-DPRI Meeting, Integrated Disaster Risk Management: Megacity Vulnerability and Resilience, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria 2931 July
(2002).
51. Hyogo Framework for Action 20052015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, World Conference on Disaster Reduction 1822 January 2005,
Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, www.unisdr.org (2009.6. 19).
S1793924009000029
221
52. The World Bank, http://web.worldbank.org/website/external/topics/extlawjustice/

extenvironmentnatreslaw/0,contentmdk:20675447menupk:1737138pagepk:148956
pipk:216618 thesitepk:1001743,00.htl (2009.4.10).
53. T. Ragsdale, K. Oberhagemann and M. A. Faisal, Involuntary Meets Disaster Mitigation
Resettlement: A Case Study from Erosion Mitigation on the lower Brahmaputra/Jamuna River in Bangladesh,http://www.his.com/mesas/articles/Involuntarymitigation.pdf (2009.6.26).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Challenges and Potentials of Post-Disaster Relocation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenges and Potentials of Post-Disaster Relocation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

April 19, 2010 14:21 RPS/AJEDM-Journal

Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management