Thoughts on Overseas Travels：Adaptability of Low-income Communities in Post-disaster Relocation

(PCC) Program on Chinese Cities – Thoughts on Overseas Travels Series

Authors: Jiaming Xu,

Ph.D. candidate at the School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Huazhong University of Science and Technology; joint Ph.D. student at the Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. jiamxu@foxmail.com

Community relocation has become a global policy tool to address natural disasters caused by climate change and a planning response strategy to prevent future catastrophic events and reduce post-disaster losses. However, existing studies have insufficiently focused on the planning and long-term tracking of relocated communities. Since post-disaster recovery and resettlement is a multi-year process, residents’ attitudes toward disaster risk and resettlement continuously change, and thus adaptation strategies should also be adjusted accordingly. To assess the effectiveness of community relocation processes and outcomes, governments, planners, researchers, and other stakeholders need to continuously pay attention to residents’ dynamic experiences during the relocation process. The article “Adaptability of Low-income Communities in Postdisaster Relocation: A Long-Term Study Following Typhoon Haiyan” provides valuable data and insights for evaluating the effectiveness of community relocation processes and outcomes. Author Kanako Iuchi focuses on the resettlement communities planned by the Philippine government in response to Typhoon Haiyan, revealing the evolving perspectives of the government, residents, and non-governmental organizations. Iuchi’s study subject is a large-scale relocation of a coastal community in Tacloban City (Figure 1). Through interviews, observations, and long-term engagement, this six-year continuous tracking study reveals residents’ views on community relocation strategies and how these strategies and views interact with the evolving physical and social environments of the new resettlement community.

1 Relocation Background

In November 2013, Super Typhoon Haiyan struck the Philippines, causing severe and even fatal damage to coastal areas, including Tacloban City. According to United Nations reports, approximately 4 million people were left homeless. Despite the Philippine government’s extensive experience in managing collective community relocations, the unprecedented scale and urgency of this event posed significant challenges. Within four months of the typhoon, the city rapidly established a 40-meter no-dwelling zone along the coastline and planned to permanently relocate 14,400 households from coastal communities. Following the national reconstruction policy of the Philippines, the Tacloban City government decided to plan and build both transitional and permanent housing for relocation and designed a “two-step resettlement plan”: The first step was to move residents from tents and evacuation centers to temporary shelters in the city center and the northern part of the city. The city center shelters mainly targeted the elderly, disabled, and poor, while the northern shelters primarily targeted larger families. The second step was to relocate families from temporary shelters to permanent housing units in the north (Figures 2, 3). The northern reception area, located 10 miles north of the city center, was designed to accommodate both transitional shelters and ongoing permanent housing construction. However, due to insufficient transitional housing construction during the construction period, many displaced residents sought temporary housing, with the original coastal community being their preferred choice, despite the area being designated as a no-dwelling zone. According to city data, about 85% of people returned to live in coastal areas one year after the typhoon [though the actual situation was much higher].

Figure 3 Locations of Transitional and Permanent Resettlement Housing

2 Adaptability and Transformative Views of Relocated Residents

Compared to the transitional relocation path, is the post-disaster relocation path planned by the government feasible and does it have a positive impact? What are the residents’ views, and do they change over time? The author conducted long-term research through in-depth interviews, revealing changes in residents’ views on two different relocation paths: the planned relocation path and the transitional relocation path, and comparing the differences between them (Tables 1, 2).

Table 1 Relocation Paths and Housing Types

Table 2 Residents' Views on Relocation in Different Relocation Paths and Housing Types — Table 2 Residents’ Views on Relocation in Different Relocation Paths and Housing Types

2.1 Adaptability and Transformative Views of Residents on the Planned Relocation Path

In October 2015, residents of transitional housing faced challenges such as difficulty accessing water and electricity, inconvenient transportation, and employment difficulties, leading most interviewees living there to hold negative views on relocation. Meanwhile, the study found that residents temporarily returning to coastal areas (original sites) restored normal production and living activities faster than those in the northern transitional shelters. In December 2017, interviews with residents of the northern permanent housing found that about 40% of residents had two homes: one in the northern transitional housing, which was vital for survival due to its proximity to the city center, and the other in the original coastal areas (original sites), which facilitated livelihood opportunities through the pre-typhoon social and economic networks. However, by November 2018, relocated residents had well adapted to the northern permanent housing, with 75% willing to give up their coastal homes. By 2020, more than 80% of residents no longer retained coastal housing. Interviews revealed that sturdy housing, access to education and healthcare, and reliable water supply were three important factors influencing residents’ satisfaction.

2.2 Adaptability and Transformative Views of Residents on the Transitional Relocation

Path The views of residents on the transitional relocation path differed from those on the planned relocation path mentioned above. In interviews in February 2015, residents faced rising commodity prices in coastal areas but had better access to work and urban services, so living conditions were still good. However, they also expressed concerns about future natural disasters like typhoons and hoped to relocate as soon as possible. By August 2017, the northern water supply and permanent housing construction projects were still incomplete. Interviews showed that more than 90% of respondents planned to move to the north, although they still relied on their original communities. Given the poor conditions in the reception area, the high cost of transportation to the city center, and limited economic opportunities, they expressed unwillingness to relocate. During interviews, it was found that almost all respondents claimed to have re-established livelihoods in their original communities, maintaining occupations similar to those before. Meanwhile, many residents expressed complex feelings about relocation, such as worrying about future typhoon strikes on their original communities but also concerns about the inconvenience of production and living in new communities. Overall, the attraction of living in sturdy housing remained strong for them. By August 2019, living conditions in the north had improved, and residents began responding to city government requests to demolish all buildings in the coastal no-dwelling zone. By 2020, 70% of the permanent housing units in the resettlement site were in use.

3 Planning-Centric Community Relocation Model

This six-year study reveals a complex and interdependent planning and decision-making process involving the government, non-governmental organizations, and residents. The findings indicate that residents’ concerns and views on relocation change continuously based on conditions such as “temporary or permanent housing” and “location.” The pre-typhoon economic and social networks of residents still exist during the relocation process, but over time, residents adjust according to policies and community realities. The progress of new site development and livelihood prospects in the relocated area plays a key role in shaping residents’ perceptions, which continuously change with community conditions and policies.

The article proposes a planning-centric community relocation model to address residents’ continuously changing views and needs. These suggestions include:

Prioritizing overall recovery: Emphasizing rebuilding residents’ lives, including livelihoods, public services, social connections, etc., alongside housing development.
Activating resident community participation: Actively empowering and utilizing residents’ own abilities throughout the relocation process to promote community-led improvements and adaptations.
Strategic community planning: Establishing new sites near the original area or ensuring safe temporary pathways between new and old communities to maintain social and economic connections, which helps residents alleviate stress and smoothly rebuild their production and living activities.
Information transparency and support: Providing open, transparent information and robust support systems to enhance residents’ sense of security. Clear communication about community progress not only helps residents view relocation positively and implement relocation plans effectively but also eliminates rumors that might foster negative perceptions.
Flexible and inclusive community participation: Relocation is a non-linear process, and residents’ needs and views may change with the environment. During this process, government departments, planners, and others need to broadly listen to residents’ needs and opinions at different stages and adopt flexible policy measures or planning strategies.

Reference: IUCHI K. Adaptability of low-income communities in post-disaster relocation: a long-term study following Typhoon Haiyan[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2023, 90(1): 2-17.