Chapter 46
Post-disaster Community Relocation
Field of expertise: Planning and Recovery, Disaster Risk and Resilience

Kanako Iuchi
SummaryMore and more, relocating communities away from hazardous areas is considered after majordisasters. This is to protect people and their assets from future catastrophes. However, the way
relocation occurs and the impact communities bear after relocation varies, as geophysical andsocio-economic settings vary place by place. While there is no easy solution to reduce thesuffering of relocating communities, learning from previous recovery cases could provide lessons
learned to support an easier transition.
Keywords: Community relocation, recovery, future disaster risk reduction, geophysical and socioeconomic settings

Introduction
Moving onto rehabilitation and reconstruction quickly after disasters reduces an affected
region’s secondary loss and damage. Traditionally, damaged residences were reconstructed onsite as fast as possible. It has been rare to relocate affected communities away from their originalsites to reduce future risk, as it takes time and effort.

1: Problems Revealed by the Great East Japan Earthquake
The incidentOn March 11, 2011, a 9.0Mw earthquake generated tsunami waves with a record of 9.3
meters (recorded runup height was 35 meters), inundating 560 km2 of Japan's northeastern coastal
regions. Impacts from the earthquake and tsunami were enormous; the tsunami alone wasresponsible for more than 18,500 deaths, damaged about 300,000 buildings (130,000 of whichwere severely damaged), and displaced about 470,000 people from home at peak. The financial
loss was astronomical - an official estimation placed the cost at between 16 to 25 trillion yen(equivalent to USD 160 to 250 billion), which records it as the world's most expensive disaster inmodern history (Iuchi and Olshansky 2018).
Reconstruction Facts

1

Tsunamis washed away coastal communities that stood along Tohoku’s coast, andresidents in the affected areas lost everything. To prevent such a scale of damage and loss in thefuture, affected local governments aimed to rebuild communities that would be safe from future
tsunamis. However, Tohoku’s geophysical formation continues to make it prone to recurrent
tsunamis. Governments therefore decided to rebuild the affected communities on lands safe frompossible tsunamis rather than rebuilding on-site in their former neighborhoods.

2: A paradigm destroyed by the GEJE
Norms pre-GEJE and the needed response
Recovery plans envisioned reconstructing communities in areas safe from tsunamis, on
higher land, by either raising the ground or cutting into hillsides. By the end of the first year, thenational government secured a reconstruction grant (Fukko kofukin) for local governments toaccess programs to rebuild the affected regions. Some of these programs included “collectiverelocation promoting program for disaster prevention” (Bosai shudan iten sokushin jigyo: Boshu),used to construct new residences on safer lands for the affected residents, and “land readjustment
program for disaster-affected urban areas” (Hisai shigaichi fukko tochi kukaku seiri jigyo:Kukakuseiri) available for raising ground levels to better utilize urban functions. National datasuggests that the affected local governments most favored using the collective relocation program(Boshu) (Figure 46-1), among other programs developed as “community rebuilding programs”(Sumai no kakuho ni kansuru jigyo!"#$%&#'()*+,'-#.%/%0123#456#7318)*9:);;'<7'=#=937&9<73#>7%7),98?#)@%17#4-ABC#/)#@D#,)8=#)&')!#E97/#FG-CCC#',9?9@,'#/%13'3#;%&#&',%<)79%8#E'&'#)@,'#7%#?'7#F4B#8'E#=937&9<7#397'3#>7%7),98?#)@%17#AF5#/)!#E97/#H4-666#/%13'3IJ1</9#)8=#K,3/)830D#4CHA-#
L'<%837&1<79%8#M?'8<D#4C4C!"$9?1&'#BN:H"# O&';'&'8<'#%8#13'#%;#<%**1897D#&'@19,=98?#+&%?&)*3#@D#+&';'<71&'

3: A New Approach
Using community relocation in recovery after major disasters is also trending in other partsof the world. Indonesia's 2018 Sulawesi earthquake (7.5Mw) caused a cascading phenomenon oflandslides, tsunami, liquefaction, and mudflows that devastated the Central Sulawesi region. The
national government first developed a hazard map targeting Palu City and its vicinity to initiate
rebuilding. Based on the revised hazard map, Palu City, Donggala, and Sigi regencies planned2

residents' relocation to either higher ground or inland, both of which were deemed to be safer. Asof mid-2020, four large-scale relocation sites – with the largest one constructing approximately
3,400 housing units (see Figure 46-2) – are in progress, and smaller relocation sites (locally calledsatellite relocation sites) are also planned.

Figure 46-2. Tondo relocation site under construction
Similarly, in the recovery of the November 2013 typhoon Haiyan (local name Yolanda), thePhilippines government supported the idea of relocating coastal communities by local governmentsregulating land use. In one of the hardest typhoon-hit cities, Tacloban city in the Leyte region,
coastal residents lost their homes as well as social and economic networks they depended on for aliving. In response, the city government planned and relocated about 14,000 informal coastal
households affected in the downtown area by preparing new residential sites in the city's north,about 15 kilometers away. The rationale of relocation was to help residents resettle in a way thatwould allow them to continue their pre-typhoon life (Iuchi and Mutter 2020).

4: The Way Forward
A New Method towards Disaster Science
While relocating communities after disasters is becoming a favored approach for risk
reduction, community relocation practices highlight several issues that need attention. Two years
after the 2018 Sulawesi earthquake, hazard map revisions are still being discussed for Palu Cityand its vicinity. This is because the geophysically unusual mechanisms that severely damaged theregion are not fully understood yet. Land use decisions are also under discussion because they
rely on the hazard map. Therefore, the hazard map needs to be finalized to settle the land use
plan, and then residents who are required to relocate will be identified. With many decisions still
pending, many disaster-affected residents temporarily displaced are in limbo whether to return or
relocate from their neighborhood upon reestablishing their residence and life.
While relocating residents, Tacloban city faced an unexpected development. After thetyphoon, the city government quickly planned to develop relocation sites inland safe from the storm
surge. However, preparing relocation sites and houses for the residents took a significant amountof time; in the meantime, many residents remained in their original neighborhoods to access theirformer economic and social networks to work and live (Figure 46-3). As a result, many families
have two houses – one in the new relocation site and the other in their original neighborhood.
Meanwhile, Tohoku’s community relocation projects have finished construction, and3

residents have moved in and begun their new life. However, new issues are emerging due toincluding aging of the relocated communities, a decline in the use of newly prepared housing units,
and complicated management of land in the original neighborhood.

$9?1&'#BN:F"# P%13'3#&'@19,7#98#7/'#%&9?98),#M89@%8?#8'9?/@%&/%%=
These three cases illustrate that the governments of the disaster-stricken communities
equally share the goal of relocation to reduce future hazard risks. At the same time, the cases show
differences in hazard exposure and local cultural contexts, including social and economic networks,
and how that affects relocation outcomes.

Conclusion - from the author
We are likely to continue living with disaster risks because climate change and rapid
urbanization contribute to making our environment vulnerable. Due to this environmental change, it
is likely that large-scale community relocation will be considered, especially after major disasters,in alignment with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction’s “Build Back Better” concept(2015). Various examples of community relocation can provide lessons on how to reduce sufferingand ease the transition process for residents targeted to relocate. More on-the-ground cases withdifferent geophysical and socio-economic settings will help identify rationales and premises toachieve such a goal.
References
Iuchi, K., & Mutter, J. (2020). Governing community relocation after major disasters: An analysis ofthree different approaches and its outcomes in Asia. Progress in Disaster Science, 6(2020),100071-Open Access.
Iuchi, K., & Olshansky, R. B. (2018). Revisiting Tohoku’s five-year recovery: Community rebuilding
policies, programs and implementation. In V. Santiago-Fandino, S. Sato, N. Maki & K. Iuchi (Eds.),
The 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami: Reconstruction and restoration insights and assessment
after 5 years (pp. 91-111). Switzerland: Springer.
L'<%837&1<79%8#M?'8<D#%;#Q)+)8"#>4C4C!"#R1&&'87#&'<%837&1<79%8#37)713#)8=#';;%&73"#4

/77+3STTEEE"&'<%837&1<79%8"?%"U+T7%+9<3T*)98:<)7HT31@:<)7H:HT98='("/7*,I4C4C V A W HN XYZ[#5