Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Just adaptation? Generating new vulnerabilities and shaping adaptive

capacities through the politics of climate-related resettlement in a
Philippine coastal city
Justin See *, Brooke Wilmsen
Department of Social Inquiry, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drawing on the adaptation, justice, and resettlement literatures, this study explores the prospects for procedural
Resettlement (who is involved, how they are selected) and distributive justice (how the outcomes are experienced by different
Fairness groups) in a resettlement project in the coastal city of Iloilo in the Philippines. This project, which sought to
Climate Change
reduce flood risks, required the resettlement of 3500 families. The city was lauded locally and internationally and
Displacement
Philippines
the government intends to replicate it across the country. This study uses a mixed method approach, including
200 household surveys and interviews with government officials, NGO staff, and community members. It finds
that while some households experience notable improvements in their housing quality, incomes and climate
resilience, the resettlement process exacerbated intra-community inequality and exclusion. It also finds that the
distribution of these benefits was a function of political power and pre-existing wealth discrepancies rather than
of need. To avoid these mistakes in the future, governments and resettlement planners must take account of how
inequality and asymmetries in power shape resettlement outcomes. To do this, questions of procedural,
distributive and contextual justice must be brought to the fore.

1. Introduction emerged as a critical consideration for climate change adaptation re­

Resettlement is increasingly recognised as an important adaptation
response to climate change. It is even thought to be more appropriate
than structural protection measures (such as levees) or in situ risk
management (Hino et al., 2017; Tadgell et al., 2018), responses that are
surely less disruptive than the relocation of entire communities. Ac­
cording to the latest IPCC report, it is now worth considering the
resettlement (also called retreat or relocation) of at-risk communities
living on low lying islands and coasts as a response to sea level rise
(Oppenheimer et al., 2019). While such remarks suggest climate change
induced resettlement is ‘under consideration’, cases in Alaska, Papua
New Guinea, Montserrat, Ethiopia, China, Fiji, the Philippines, the
Solomon Islands and the Maldives demonstrate it is already under way
(Maldonado et al., 2013; Arnall, 2019; McMichael et al., 2019; Miller,
2019). Given it is a relatively new adaptation strategy, with limited
research into its complexities (Tadgell et al., 2018; Miller, 2019), there is
an urgent need to interrogate the use of resettlement as an adaptation
response to climate change.
The fairness of interventions, such as resettlement, has recently
sponses. In this regard, there has been a proliferation of research around
the notion of “just adaptation” (Paavola and Adger, 2006) whereby
“socially valued resources, such as jobs, income, political voice and
power, cultural acceptance, social services and environmental goods, as
well as the opportunities to make use of these resources, should be
equitably allocated across space” (Shi et al., 2016, p. 132). Given the
increasing focus on resettlement as a legitimate response to climate
change, the capacity for just adaptation to be achieved through its
conduct and observed in its impact requires analysis. Evidence from
other contexts, specifically development-induced displacement projects,
demonstrates resettlement rarely produces socially just or equitable
outcomes (Wilmsen and Rogers, 2019).
As an imposed act, resettlement has failed to stave off the misery and
impoverishment suffered by those who are displaced by development
projects (Cernea, 1997; De Sherbinin et al., 2011; Scudder, 2011; Rogers
and Xue, 2015; Wilmsen and Webber, 2015). Aside from the generalised
impoverishment risks of landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, mar­
ginalisation, food insecurity, increased morbidity, loss of access to
common property resources, and community disarticulation (Cernea,

* Corresponding author at: Department of Social Inquiry, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia.
E-mail addresses: justin.see@latrobe.edu.au (J. See), b.wilmsen@latrobe.edu.au (B. Wilmsen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102188
Received 12 March 2020; Received in revised form 20 August 2020; Accepted 5 October 2020
Available online 23 October 2020
0959-3780/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. See and B. Wilmsen
1997), resettlement as it is practiced in the development context exhibits
little regard for human agency, instead treating the affected population
as passive victims unable to negotiate their own interests (Gupte and
Mehta, 2013; Wilmsen and Webber, 2015). Resettlement also dismantles
interpersonal ties and social organization (Downing and Garcia-
Downing, 2009; Milgroom and Ribot, 2020), disrupts networks of
mutual help (Cernea, 2000; Oliver-Smith, 2009), erodes community
identity (Hirschon, 2000) and destabilises routine culture (Downing and
Garcia-Downing, 2009). In their study of a resettlement in Limpopo
National Park in Mozambique, Milgroom and Ribot (2020) observe that
social disarticulation results from changing power relationships as
people struggle to re/gain control of resources in response to the
changing material conditions inherent in resettlement. All these out­
comes are found to be highly uneven, with some people benefiting from
the disruption and others left destitute (Wilmsen and Rogers, 2019).
Given the potential for resettlement to inflict harm on many, some ex­
perts maintain that resettlement should only be undertaken as a last
resort to climate change (Barnett and O’Neill, 2011; Rogers and Xue,
2015; Wilmsen and Webber, 2015).
Resettlement as a climate change adaptation response has few ex­
amples from which to learn (McMichael et al., 2019). To address this
gap, this paper provides a detailed case study of the Iloilo Flood Control
Project (henceforth referred to as IFCP) in the Philippines. The IFCP has
been lauded by development organisations (Japan International Coop­
eration Agency, 2013) and the Philippines authorities (Tayona, 2019) as
a success story and so it is anticipated to inform the planning of future
climate-related responses across the Philippine archipelago (Cruz,
2019). Given its significance, we analyse the implementation, distribu­
tional impacts and livelihood outcomes of the IFCP resettlement. In
doing so, we uncover the political and power dynamics that circumvent
the linear trajectory of resettlement procedures and generate in­
equalities that shape the lived experience of resettlement.
According to the latest IPCC report, “well designed and carefully
implemented programmes … can improve housing standards and reduce
vulnerability” (Oppenheimer et al., 2019, p. 102). The IFCP resettlement
was well planned with a Resettlement Action Plan guiding its imple­
mentating that met international standards of best practice. This
included designing the resettlement as a development opportunity for
the communities involved. In this sense, it is characterised as an example
of ‘developmental climate resettlement’ which proposes that “at an
absolute minimum, resettlers should be no worse off as a result of
relocation and that, ideally, their long-term wellbeing in their new set­
tlements is improved” (Arnall, 2019, p. 260). This is similar to the
concept of “Resettlement with Development (RwD)”, promoted for the
last 20 years by scholars of development-displacement (Cernea, 1995,
2008; Mahapatra, 1999; Muggah, 2000; World Commission on Dams,
2000; Duan and McDonald, 2004). Under this approach resettlement
should be treated as a development opportunity in its own right. RwD
has been highly influential, strongly influencing international standards
of best practice, especially in China, where it is official government
policy (Cernea, 2008). There is however little evidence that RwD works
as either an economic development or redistributive mechanism. An
exception is the Three Gorges Dam resettlement in China where unri­
valled investment and national mobilisation efforts acted to bolster the
regional economy and differentially improve long-term resettlement
impacts (Wilmsen, 2016, 2018a, 2018b).
Whilst standards of best practice are important, even where they are
applied, they are not sufficient to ensure socially just adaptation and
equitable outcomes. Instead, the lived experience of resettlement − as
socially just or unjust – has been demonstrated to be highly influenced
by power structures and the political agendas of different levels of
government and how displaced households and communities are posi­
tioned and perceived within these structures (Wilmsen and Adjartey,
2020). In the development context, resettlement tends to privilege the
objectives of elites and typically results in distributive injustice (Katus
et al., 2016; Rogers and Wilmsen, 2019). Just like poverty,
2
Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188
desertification, disaster and war, climate change can be used by gov­
ernments to “conceal underlying political agendas” and justify the
forced resettlement of communities (Kothari, 2014, p. 130). As such,
there is a need to unpack how power and politics produce socially (un)
just and (in)equitable outcomes.
To this end, the rest of this paper is organised as follows: first, we
explore the literature on fairness and justice in the field of climate
change adaptation and its origins. We then provide an overview of the
IFCP, focusing on the resettlement components, describe our research
methods, and review the governance and legal structures in which the
project was embedded. This is followed by a presentation of our key
findings which are split into two subsections around the themes of
procedural and distributive justice. In the discussion/conclusion we
consider whose interests were served by the resettlement project and
how the political nature of resettlement acts to reproduce and exacer­
bate inequities.
2. Fairness in adaptation to climate change
Several authors have explored questions of fairness and justice in
relation to climate change adaptation (Adger, 2006; Johnson, 2012;
Graham et al., 2015, 2018; Wilmsen and Rogers, 2019; Svarstad and
Benjaminsen, 2020). The literature is predominantly concerned with
allocative and discursive mechanisms of just adaptation - distributive
and procedural justice. The former refers to the distribution of the
benefits and adverse effects of climate change (Adger, 2006; Adger et al.,
2016). It involves asking: who is beneficially or adversely affected by an
adaptation decision or allocation of resources? (Graham et al., 2015). On
the other hand, procedural fairness ensures people can influence both
the decision-making processes and the means for doing so. It includes
questions such as “do people have the political capability to influence
adaptation decisions” and “who takes action?” and how (Adger et al.,
2012; Martin et al., 2013).
The notion of just adaptation heralds from the environmental justice
and critical development literatures. This large corpus of scholarship is
concerned with the discursive and allocative mechanisms that drive the
production of justices and injustices to help explain how environmental
and development priorities of equity and justice stand in stark contrast
to local experiences of inequity and injustice (Martin et al., 2013; Venot
and Clement, 2013). For example, Martin’s (Martin, 2013; Martin et al.,
2013, 2015) extensive works on biodiversity, conservation, ecosystem
services and equity demonstates how a focus on distributive justice can
perpetuate injustice by forcing communities to assimilate dominant
ways of knowing and living with nature. Okereke and Dooley (2010)
show how market-based attempts at distributive justice can have pro­
found environmental and social implications. While critical develop­
ment scholars also engage with the concept of justice, they have come to
it later and there is of course overlap between these literatures. Another
overlapping area of research to apply a justice lens is critical disaster
scholarship which observes the uneven impacts of disaster as an
expression of preconditioned vulnerability and social differentiation
brought on by social, economic and political processes (Clark et al.,
2013). Poor and marginalised communities, for example in New Orleans
after Hurricane Katrina, were seen to recover slower than other sege­
ments of society due to discrimination and rejection by organisations
that were supposed to be supporting recovery efforts (Clark et al., 2013).
In each of these contexts, considerations of justice are unified by a focus
on how it is subverted by the agendas of powerful interests.
Just adaptation is defined in a Rawlsian sense, that is, the fair allo­
cation of material and social benefits among people over space and time
(Rawls, 1971). This definition also informed early understandings of
justice in the environmental and development justice literatures. How­
ever, it was later challenged as a western liberal notion based on indi­
vidual rights that is incongruous to more community-minded and
collective understandings of justice (Clark et al., 2013; Martin et al.,
2013). Critical development scholarship and the environmental justice
J. See and B. Wilmsen
literature have attempted to extend the Rawlsian definition beyond the
fair distribution of goods and services and fair procedures to take in
Amartya Sen’s notion of capabilities, that is, to exert political choices
over the use of those resources (Venot and Clement, 2013; Martin et al.,
2015). However, these are largely theoretical extensions with little ev­
idence of uptake by practictioners (Martin et al., 2013), despite efforts to
translate these into practical frameworks for advancing equity (see for
example, McDermott et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2015; Schreckenberg
et al., 2016).
The environmental justice literature has also attempted to extend the
definition of justice beyond its distributive and procedural elements to
incorporate recognition and broader contextual considerations. Recog­
nition is defined as “the status afforded to different social and cultural
values or identities and to the social groups who hold them” (Dawson
et al., 2018). However, McDermott et al. (2013, pp. 418-419) observe
recognition as a characteristic of procedural equity along with “inclu­
sion, representation and participation in decision-making” and not a
standalone element (McDermott et al., 2013). Instead, they call for the
social and economic context to be considered, alongside the equality of
procedure and distribution. Dawson et al. (2018) are unconvinced by the
addition of context to procedure and distribution, stating it is an inade­
quate substitution for recognition, although they do not provide further
explanation. Therefore, as attempts to extend the definition of justice
beyond its distributive and procedural domains are contested, defini­
tions of just adaptation are based on its distributive and procedural
elements.
Wilmsen and Rogers (2019) identify two broad approaches to
defining justice in the climate adaptation literature – the responsibility-
based approach and the human rights-based approach. The former
considers the unfairness between countries that emit the bulk of
greenhouse gases and regions that suffer the impacts of these emissions
(Paavola and Adger, 2006; Shi et al., 2016). Fairness in this sense re­
quires those countries that have contributed most to climate change to
bear the greatest burden in dealing with the problem, including
compensating those who have borne the greatest costs, such as those
living in areas threatened by sea level rises or extreme weather events
(Byrne et al., 2002; Risse, 2009). The rights-based approach frames the
imposition of climate change risks on vulnerable communities as a range
of human rights violations (Schlosberg and Collins, 2014). Fairness (and
justice) in this sense requires atonement for human rights that have been
violated or ignored (Caney, 2006). Both these approaches tend to focus
on questions of fairness and justice at the international or country level
(Barnett and O’Neill, 2011). As such, they obscure the ethical and
practical implications of climate change at the local and individual level
(Barrett, 2013; Fisher, 2015) where the unequal geographical distribu­
tion of climate change risks is experienced. By providing a community
level analysis of the lived experience of a climate change adaptation
response, this research aims to address this gap in the literature.
Adaptation interventions also create ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ at a range
of geographic scales. ‘Winners’ are those who experience improved
conditions, benefits, and opportunities as a result of global changes
whereas the ‘losers’ experience further marginalisation and increased
vulnerability (O’Brien and Leichenko, 2003). With regards to climate
change, losers tend to be poor, socially and geographically isolated, and
lack the financial resources or government support they need to adapt
(Thomas and Twyman, 2005). The principle of “putting the most
vulnerable first” emerges from the climate justice literature. However,
this focus on vulnerability has the perverse effect of underplaying the
agency of marginalised communities, rendering them passive targets of
protection efforts (Bankoff, 2001; Burton et al., 2002; Few, 2003;
Thomas and Twyman, 2005; Barnett, 2009; Graham et al., 2015). It
legitimates top-down interventions in at-risk communities, undercutting
the effectiveness of projects and raising concerns about justice and
fairness (Smit and Pilifosova, 2001; Klein et al., 2007; Eriksen et al.,
2015). Resettlement is one such intervention; often portrayed as a
technical and apolitical process that, when properly planned and
3
Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188
implemented, can lead to fair and beneficial outcomes (Wilmsen and
Rogers, 2019). However, such perceptions of resettlement tend to
obscure its political nature which shapes inequitable outcomes (Wilm­
sen and Webber, 2015). Thus, to understand fairness in climate change
adaptation, we need to unpack the differential impacts of climate-
induced resettlement projects and the role that power plays in state-
orchestrated adaptation responses. To this end, we now present our
case study.
3. The Iloilo Flood Control project (IFCP)
Iloilo City is a growing urban centre of 500,000 people covering
5,500 km2 on the south-eastern tip of Panay Island. The city is located on
a flat alluvial plain about 2.6 m above sea level (Dodman et al., 2010)
and is adjacent to several major rivers, making it vulnerable to flooding.
The Iloilo Flood Control Project began in 2002 to address the city’s
recurring flooding problems. Completing the project became more ur­
gent in 2008 when Typhoon Fengshen flooded 152 of Iloilo’s 180 bar­
angays, a term referring to the smallest administrative unit in the
Philippines. The typhoon killed 105 people and displaced more than
250,000 people (National Disaster Coordinating Council, 2009).
The IFCP required the resettlement of 3,500 households, the majority
of whom lived below the poverty line, to a 16.2 ha resettlement site in
San Isidro (Fig. 1). The resettlers were drawn from the several barangays
located in the districts of Jaro, La Paz, Mandurriao, and Pavia. These
areas are traversed by the Iloilo River, Tigum River, and Dungon Creek
and were therefore highly susceptible to flooding (USAID, 2013).
Another 10,000 households were earmarked for resettlement in the
future (Philippine News Agency, 2017), making it one of the biggest
resettlement projects in the city’s history (Subong, 2011). The IFCP
embodies the principle of “Resettlement with Development” – in addi­
tion to mitigating the risk of flooding, it aims to restore, improve and
diversify livelihoods (DPWH, 2005). Some commentators have applau­
ded the project for providing the backbone of progress (Santiagudo,
2019) and paving the way for massive development in the city (Tayona,
2019).
A Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was drafted by the Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH) with the assistance of three engi­
neering and consultancy companies, two based in the Philippines and
one in Japan. The RAP complied with the social safeguard policies of the
Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank, considered inter­
national best practice in this area. To prevent impoverishment and social
disarticulation, the participation of people affected by the RAP was
sought through information-education sessions. The RAP envisioned the
resettlement process as progressing through eight linear steps (see
Fig. 2). Resettlement was described as ‘voluntary’, which requires that
the affected people have the “right to remain” (Wilmsen and Wang,
2016); however, in practice, people could only choose to participate in
the government-directed RAP or move of their own accord.
Within government circles, the RAP is considered a successful
endeavour because it was participatory, non-violent and households
were resettled close to their original homes (Asian Coalition for Human
Rights, 2009; Lena, 2018). In 2019, the city was awarded the Gawad
KALASAG Award for excellence in disaster risk reduction and humani­
tarian assistance (Sunstar Iloilo, 2019). This award is conferred by the
national government, more specifically the National Disaster Coordi­
nating Council, in recognition of a local government unit’s contributions
in rebuilding the resilience of communities to disasters (Republic of the
Philippines, 2008). Furthermore, in his speech at 5th Asia-Pacific
Housing Forum that was held in Manila, Motoo Konishi, the Country
Director of East Asia and the Pacific at the World Bank, referred to Iloilo
City’s resettlement scheme as “an innovative initiative… that has suc­
ceeded in addressing this particular issue of informal settlements”
(World Bank, 2015).
Buoyed by this apparent success, the government stated that it in­
tends to use the IFCP as a model for other flood mitigation projects in the
J. See and B. Wilmsen
Fig. 1. San Isidro Resettlement Site in Jaro City and the origin of the relocatees.
Fig. 2. The Resettlement Process.
Source: Resettlement Action Plan for the IFCP (DPWH, 2005: 32).
Philippines (Cruz, 2019). It is, therefore, important that we examine
critically whether the IFCP does indeed represent a socially just and
equitable approach to climate change adaptation. To explore this, a
household survey was administered to 200 resettled households in the
San Isidro Resettlement Site in the language of Hiligaynon between April
and July 2018. The questionnaire focused on the residents’ lived expe­
riences of resettlement, including their views about distributive and
procedural fairness. Four NGOs were tasked with the implementation of
the RAP. The population was systematically sampled according to the
4
Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188
number of households under the management of each NGO. To ensure
the sample captured the affected population in each NGO, the survey
was distributed to every fifth household on randomly selected roads
throughout the resettlement site. The quantitative data was triangulated
by 25 semi-structured interviews with government officials, NGO staff,
and community leaders in the resettlement site. The key themes of the
interview data were political intervention, participation, security,
housing quality and climate resilience. The survey data was analysed
statistically using SPSS. The qualitative data was transcribed into NVivo
for thematic analysis.
4. Resettlement policy and practice in Iloilo
The Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the
world with frequent typhoons, floods, droughts and earthquakes (Porio,
2011, 2014). The Philippine government supports the practice of
resettlement through Republic Act no. 7279 article V11 section 29,
which states “Within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, the
local government units, in coordination with the National Housing Au­
thority, shall implement the relocation and resettlement of persons
living in danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps,
riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and in other public places as side­
walks, roads, parks, and playgrounds” (Republic of the Philippines,
1992, p. 23). Since 1992, this legislation has also been used to authorise
the resettlement of people after extreme weather events such as
Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 where 10,000 households were resettled from
Tacloban City (Iuchi and Maly, 2016) and for ‘future climate adapta­
tion’, for example, the removal of informal settlements in Metro Manila,
Cavite City and Marikina City (Tadgell et al., 2017, p. 447). Recent
J. See and B. Wilmsen
legislation, such as the Republic Act 9729 (Climate Change Act of 2009)
and the Republic Act 10,121 (Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Act of 2011) also requires climate change considerations to be incor­
porated into government plans and projects, with more funding allo­
cated to climate change mitigation and adaptation projects such as
resettlement (Doberstein et al., 2020). Taken together this legislation
provides the Philippine government with a legal mechanism to resettle
people vulnerable to climate change.
Resettlement in the Philippines involves multiple actors operating at
different levels of government. It is predominantly agency-driven and
top-down: while the local government serves as the coordinating body,
the implementation mostly falls on the hands of the NGOs and their
respective donors (Sherwood et al., 2015; Carrascoet al., 2016a).
Moreover, the roles of the national agencies and local government units
often overlap, as evidenced in case of the IFCP resettlement. A thorough
and detailed description of each department’s role in the resettlement
process is beyond the scope of this paper, suffice to say that multiple
interests coalesce around the planning and management of resettlement
within and between government departments (see Fig. 3). The way in
which the power dynamics between these various agencies and levels of
government shapes climate change adaptation has been explored else­
where in the Philippines (see Arroyo and Åstrand, 2019). The focus of
this paper, however, is how these power dynamics shape perceptions of
procedural and distributional fairness at the local level.
In Iloilo City, the Iloilo City Urban Poor Affairs Office (ICUPAO) is
the main government agency responsible for housing and resettlement.
Its members regularly conduct site inspections and investigations and
supervise the identification of households that will be relocated. How­
ever, as this was the largest resettlement ever undertaken by the city
government, the RAP noted that the capabilities of ICUPAO were not
sufficient to meet the demands of the relocation. Thus, the local bar­
angay officials and four external NGOs assisted ICUPAO with the
Fig. 3. Political Structures involved in Resettlement.
Source: Author’s own diagram.
5
Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188
resettlement process and construction of new housing. Project-affected
families were resettled in one of four NGO housing projects (see
Fig. 4). The NGOs, some of which were funded by the UK and Swedish
development agencies, are unnamed to protect their anonymity. They
differed in their provisions (services and resources), funding sources and
relationship with the city government.
The largest and most politically connected NGO, which we designate
as ‘NGO A’, offered a superior resettlement programme compared to the
other three NGOs (designated B, C and D accordingly). Importantly, it is
regularly involved in resettlement in the Philippines and has a formal
agreement with the city government as its preferred provider of reset­
tlement services. 172 households were referred to NGO A based on an
assessment of their household income and capacity to service low in­
terest loans with amounts that ranged between Php 70,000 and Php
150,000. Households were also required to commit Php 15,000 to
25,000 worth of labour to building their houses. Households were
supported through ongoing training and workshops to plan, design,
procure materials and construct climate resilient houses. A community
savings scheme was implemented to help resettled households build
their financial capacity and fund livelihood development and housing
improvements. The houses built by this NGO are 30 – 50 square metres
and two storeys, with sanitation, electricity and water (Fig. 5a).
The funding for NGO A was sufficient for the construction of 172
housing units. However, because the IFCP necessitated the relocation of
3,500 families, the local government had to bring in other NGOs (B, C,
and D) to accommodate the rest of the households. Under NGOs B, C and
D households were provided with prefabricated houses free of charge
and did not have to contribute their own labour. These houses were
smaller than those provided by NGO A (20 – 24 square metres) and only
one storey high (see Fig. 5b). These houses were also connected to
electricity, water and sanitation services, but experienced a range of
problems that are discussed later. In short, the material circumstances of
J. See and B. Wilmsen
Fig. 4. Spatial Configuration of the four NGOs within the San Isidro Resettlement Site
Source: Authors’ diagram (modified from Google Maps).
a. Typical house constructed by first NGO
Fig. 5. Typical housing in the resettlement site a. Typical house constructed by first NGO b. Typical house constructed by other NGOs
Source: Lead author’s photos, 2018.
households differed according to which NGO assisted with their reset­
tlement. In the next sub-sections, we explore how political processes and
power asymmetries reproduced and exacerbated pre-resettlement in­
equalities through the lens of procedural and distributional fairness.
5. Key research findings
5.1. Procedural fairness
Procedural fairness begins with legislation that bestows rights. In the
Philippines, the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (Republic
Act 7279) is the key legislation covering housing and resettlement. It
lists the responsibilities of all actors involved in state-sponsored reset­
tlement projects, including the mandatory provision of social services,
livelihood protection and development, and community participation.
To be eligible for a state-sponsored resettlement programme, an indi­
vidual an must meet four criteria: he or she (1) must be a Filipino citizen;
(2) must be underprivileged and homeless (i.e. individuals whose in­
come falls within the poverty threshold and do not own housing facil­
ities); (3) must not own any real property according to government
records; and (4) must not be a professional ‘squatter’ (i.e. individuals
who occupy lands without the consent of the landowner and yet have
sufficient income for legitimate housing). However, the RAP outlined
additional criteria to limit the timeframe in which someone could be
identified as having claims to assistance.
6
Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188
b. Typical house constructed by other NGOs
Whilst the initial list of project-affected households was produced by
national institutions and the city government, the barangay was
responsible for validating the list and referring people to the various
NGO housing programmes. It was, here, that procedural unfairness was
first observed. Access to NGO A, which provided the highest quality
replacement housing, was restricted to those who could afford to service
the loans provided under this programme. As a result, those households
allocated to NGO A tended to have the highest incomes amongst the
population needing to be resettled (see Fig. 6). This resulted in a two-tier
resettlement programme whereby the wealthiest households (average
monthly income of Php 11,662.64) had access to the programme offered
by NGO A and poorer households (average monthly income Php
9,023.40 or below) were referred to NGO B, C, or D.
Transparency is an emerging procedural justice norm that builds
trust and predictability (Brandstedt and Brülde, 2019), but at the IFCP
resettlement, referral into the programme was opaque and fraught with
anomalies. During an interview with an official in charge of resettle­
ment, he admitted: “I don’t have … a basis to say that all of them
(resettlers) are qualified to be a beneficiary. Some of them were
randomly and uncarefully placed in resettlement sites without proper
validation” (Administrative official, personal interview, May 7, 2018).
Our interviews indicate that connections were important to get into the
resettlement site in the first place: “We only knew about this housing
opportunity through our family friend working in the barangay. Without
his help, I don’t think we would ever get here” (Female, NGO C, personal
J. See and B. Wilmsen
Fig. 6. Average incomes of households supported by each NGO (Before and After Resettlement).
interview, May 24, 2018). In particular, the likelihood that a household
would be referred to NGO A was a function of their political capital, that
is, a person could be referred to NGO A if they knew the right people, and
the right people tended to be politicians in the local government. When
asked how she got access to NGO A programme, one respondent shared:
“The former barangay captain was a close friend of my mother. The
official went to my house one day and encouraged me to apply. I hon­
estly cannot say if he had a hand in getting my application approved, but
he sure was very helpful throughout the entire process. I found it easy to
retrieve government documents that I needed for my application” (Fe­
male, NGO A, personal interview, May 28, 2018). One NGO A official
also showed us an ‘endorsement letter’ from a local politician requesting
the NGO to accommodate a political ally “in order to foster better
collaboration between their offices for the common good of their
people”.
Some households referred to NGO A did not necessarily meet the
national requirements for resettlement nor were their houses at risk of
flooding. Households with less connections to government officials
found it far more difficult to access NGO A’s programme even if they had
the financial capability to service the loans and wanted to participate in
the workshops on how to build climate resilient housing. One such
respondent complained to us by saying: “It was very difficult to get into
that housing programme. Because the units were very limited, only the
‘deserving’ ones were accommodated. I am not sure how they deter­
mined that as we were all equally affected by the project anyway” (Male,
NGO D, personal interview, May 16, 2018). Another official from NGO A
also recounted an instance where a local official requested that some of
his employees who were not affected by the IFCP be accommodated in
their housing project. Such strong-arming did not sit well with the NGO
A officials, but they had little choice but to accede to these demands as
“they (the local government) own the land, and they consider us part­
ners so we don’t really want to upset them” (NGO A official, personal
communication, May 11, 2018).
This practice of accommodating political allies caught the attention
of the local media. In 2017, ICUPAO was mired in controversy as some of
its past officials reportedly awarded houses either to their own relatives,
to dummies (i.e. fictitious names or unqualified individuals such as
family members used to secure relocation units), or to non-city resi­
dents, in direct violation of the Republic Act 7279 and the terms of RAP
(Delos Santos, 2017a). In response, the city government undertook a
7
Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188
review and charged the officials with “gross inexcusable negligence”
(Ibid). The city administrator then blamed ICUPAO’s lack of permanent
staff and claimed that their contracts “expired monthly and this makes
their accountability tenuous” (Tayona, 2018). During our field work,
there was no ICUPAO coordinator and only three of its thirty-five staff
were permanent employees.
The city government eventually ordered a stop to the field in­
spections of ICUPAO and employed independent experts to conduct the
validation. They also reviewed the households selected by ICUPAO and
discovered a significant number did not follow the department’s formal
application processes. Consequently, the city government repossessed
the houses of 29 recipients and as of March 2017 were in the process of
trying to repossess another 50 houses (Delos Santos, 2017b). The
repossession of houses has also generated insecurity at the other reset­
tlement sites: “we constantly live in fear that we can be evicted anytime”
(Personal interview, May 27, 2018).
Participation is an important attribute of procedural fairness
(Brandstedt and Brülde, 2019). Representation and involvement in
decision-making processes shape and affect fairness (Adger et al., 2006,
2016). Resettled households reported large differences in the degree to
which they felt they had participated in the resettlement process. Of the
four NGOs, those under the NGO A recorded higher degrees of partici­
pation (invitations to meetings, involvement in planning and the
consideration of their views in decision making) compared to those
resettled by NGOs B, C and D (see Table 1).
Our thematic analysis reveals that all our interview respondents who
were resettled by NGO A were satisfied with the consultation process. An
NGO A respondent remarked: “We were involved every step of the way.
They (NGO A) even introduced us to engineers, carpenters, and archi­
tects who equipped us with knowledge and skills that we needed in order
to build our homes” (personal communication, NGO A, May 28, 2018).
In contrast, 67% of interviewees from NGO B talked about slow re­
sponses and 75% from NGO C complained about a lack of public
consultation. One respondent resettled by NGO B, whose partner was
disabled, said: “I don’t feel like I can raise my concerns to anyone here. I
just let it go or take matters into my own hands” (personal communi­
cation, May 31, 2018). Furthermore, all respondents from NGO A
attended workshops and training to learn about housing design and
legislation related to housing. They were also taught how to do financial
estimates in procuring housing materials and introduced to the various
J. See and B. Wilmsen Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188

Table 1 Table 2
Perceptions of Procedural Fairness at the Resettlement Site (N = 200). Average income Before and After Resettlement.
Statement/question Mean Rank Scores χ2 NGO Average Monthly Income per Household (Php) % Increase

NGO A NGO B NGO C NGO D Before Resettlement After Resettlement

(N = (N = (N = (N =
A 11,662.64 16,914.90 45%*
46) 61) 60) 33)
B 6,091.38 8,021.43 31%**
The government asked 123.64 99.00 95.13 70.32 26.56** C 7,245.81 9,346.67 29%*
for my opinion/ D 9,023.40 11,293.74 25%**
suggestion when
planning my * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001.
relocation.
I have been invited to a 116.98 98.85 97.23 76.51 16.14** attributed to the community savings programme set up by NGO A, which
meeting/forum where I
funded the start-up of home-based businesses (for example, grocery
could make suggestions
about my relocation. stores known as sari-sari, internet shops and small eateries). At the other
I have participated in 117.57 90.52 100.82 77.29 17.79** housing sites, the livelihood programmes were not as well developed,
activities that involved which heightened feelings of unfairness amongst the resettled house­
planning for relocation.
holds in these areas. An official we interviewed from NGO C described
Do you think NGO 127.49 72.40 102.90 95.66 30.88**
leaders consider the
an employment programme − a local bakery meant to employ local
views of ALL (women, residents – saying, “although the project was already approved by the
children, elderly) national government on paper and funding has been released, it was
before making never really implemented and we never benefited from it” (Male NGO C
decisions?
official, personal interview, May 13, 2018).
Do you think that NGO 128.20 82.14 100.16 84.48 25.99**
leaders give Previous studies demonstrate that resettlement causes a wide range
opportunities for of deprivations (Cernea, 1997; Barnett and O’Neill, 2011; Rogers and
citizens to express their Xue, 2015; Wilmsen, 2016). Improved housing and services, however,
views before making are commonly reported as benefits. In this regard the San Isidro reset­
decisions?
tlement was no different. When asked about access to basic services such
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001 as electricity, water, toilet, and public transport, most of the respondents
NB. These numbers reflect the mean rank scores generated by running a non- noted an improvement (see Table 3).
parametric Kruskal-Wallis Test in SPSS. The chi-squared statistic indicates that However, Table 3 also demonstrates significant inequalities in im­
there is a significant difference in perceptions of procedural fairness among the 4
provements to services. Those resettled under the NGO A programme are
groups. Higher scores signify stronger agreement to each of the statements on
more likely to have improved basic services than those resettled by
procedural fairness.
NGOs B, C and D. The interviews corroborated these findings. Resettlers
from NGO A claim access to services improved with resettlement: “It
stages of housing construction. They were asked to contribute a small
seems like life is better here in San Isidro. We feel like we are living in an
amount of savings toward a revolving community fund which could be
exclusive private subdivision, which is so different from where we came
used in emergencies, to provide loans to small business, or to improve
from” (Female, NGO A, personal interview, May 25, 2018). Conversely,
their own homes. One of our interview respondents from NGO A
residents at the other NGOs resettlement sites note a range of issues
remarked: “we are also able to save up some money so that we can
including inadequate supply of clean water, clogged sewerage systems
finance our extra expenses like our children’s school allowance or
and poor drainage. A respondent from NGO D said:
housing renovation” (personal interview, May 28, 2018).
On the other hand, the households resettled by NGOs B, C, and D did “The water in our area is very difficult. We are not connected to the
not report the existence of similar initiatives that can increase their National Waterworks and Sewerage System, so we are forced to buy
participation in the resettlement process or improve post-resettlement drinking water at Php 2 per container daily. That is an unnecessary
outcomes. While there were community consultations, many com­ additional expense for my household” (Female, personal interview,
plained that these were tokenistic: “the meetings were just used as an May 15, 2018).
opportunity to solicit money from us to finance a new sound system or
The quality of housing in the areas administered by NGOs of B, C and
new furniture. This is why I try to avoid these consultations as much as
D is of lower quality compared to the households administered by NGO
possible” (Male, NGO C, personal interview, May 24, 2018). Those re­
A. One of our respondents said: “there are several cracks on the walls,
spondents who were resettled by NGOs B, C and D lamented that their
the door is not of good quality, and we need to be careful in sitting on the
grievances, which included lack of land title, substandard housing,
toilet bowl because it can collapse” (Female, NGO C, personal interview,
clogged drainage, were seldom heard or addressed by the authorities.
May 13, 2018). Whilst such issues are a daily nuisance for many
One of them said: “Nobody takes the initiative to help me out here. I can
households, many interviewees were more concerned about the ability
only rely on myself. That’s why I need to be always healthy so I can work
of their new houses to withstand extreme weather events – a key aim of
and provide for my kids” (Male, NGO B, personal interview, May 25,
the IFCP. For example, one of the interviews said:
2018). These lived experiences help explain overall differences in
perceived procedural fairness reported in Table 1. “Before a typhoon comes, we usually start to collect big stones from
the streets and then surround our house with them. They serve as
barriers so that water will not go inside our house. We have no
5.2. Distributive fairness
choice; the drainage system in our house has not been working
properly” (interviewee, NGO B, personal communication, May 25,
Procedural inequalities have flow-on effects for the distribution of
2018).
resources, services and incomes after resettlement. Table 2 demonstrates
the average incomes of all households before and after resettlement. It is Other respondents talked about having to rely on their relatives
evident that the incomes of households resettled by NGO A, who had the working abroad for money to retrofit their house; for example, fix the
highest average incomes prior to resettlement, grew the most after ceilings, replace cracked windows, strengthen the roof, and the like. On
resettlement, heightening intracommunity inequality. This can be partly closer investigation we found that the housing materials used for the

8
J. See and B. Wilmsen
Table 3
Quality of Basic Services before and after resettlement (Mean).
Service NGO A NGO B
Before After Before
Electricity 2.84 4.71* 2.16
Water 2.38 4.56** 2.13
Toilet 2.76 4.75** 2.67
Public Transport 2.18 4.31** 2.28
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001.
NB. The figures are drawn from a 5-point Likert scale, where: 1 = Very Inadequate and 5 = Very adequate.
prefabricated housing of NGOs B, C, and D were typical of social housing
programmes across the Philippines − concrete hollow blocks, metal
trusses, and galvanised iron sheets − that were not typhoon resistant
(Taruc Manalang et al., 2002; Carrascoet al., 2016b).
The households in the NGO B, C and D resettlement area also noted
that flooding continued to be a problem in the resettlement sites − the
very issue that had been used to justify their resettlement in the first
place. The residents explained that there were too many households
connected to the drainage pipes, which stressed the system of supply and
drainage and led to flooding during the rainy season. One respondent
from NGO B complained: “if it rains continuously for 2 hours, our area
gets flooded. Flood waters still enter our house. It is not as high as
before, but we are usually evacuated to the nearby school just to be
sure.” (respondent, NGO B, personal interview, May 25, 2018). On the
other hand, the households interviewed in the NGO A resettlement site
did not experience any flooding as their houses, made from a combi­
nation of Interlocking Compressed Earth Blocks (made of compacted soil
and cement) and bamboo, were resilient to typhoons and earthquakes.
Thus, the IFCP significantly improved the climate resilience of some
households – namely, those resettled by NGO A, who tended to be
wealthier and more politically connected – but not others.
The perceived unfairness of the resettlement process generated social
cleavages. The four resettlement groups now live in close proximity to
each other (see Fig. 4). Ideally, propinquity creates opportunities for
neighbours to form social connections and build cohesive and inclusive
communities. In reality, however, differences in housing quality are a
permanent reminder that some people benefited more than others from
the resettlement process, generating animosity. Verbal altercations and
accusations of theft generated a discourse of fear amongst the house­
holds resettled by NGO A. An official in the NGO A programme saidn
“When the residents of other NGOs pass through their area especially
at night, they are often very loud and drunk. Some of their neigh­
bours were also known to be involved in drug raids and street
violence, so they fear for their own safety.” (NGO A official, personal
interview, May 11, 2018).
A resident living in the NGO A area stated:
“We’ve had instances of our clothing, jalousie windows and water
pipes being stolen. In our old house, we can just hang our washed
clothes outside and not worry about them being stolen. We have to
be extra careful here” (Female, NGO A, personal interview, May 25,
2018).
Another resident in the NGO A area stated:
…“back then [before resettlement], I knew my neighbours well and I
am pretty sure that nobody did drugs. Here, there were two drug
raids just last month and I feel afraid especially for my kids” (NGO A
resettler, personal communication, May 11, 2018).
As a result of these dynamics, interviewees from all the resettlement
areas recognised that NGO A households were increasingly isolating
themselves from the other resettled households. Indeed, some in­
terviewees from NGO A expressed discriminatory attitudes about the
9
Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188
NGO C NGO D
After Before After Before After
2.77** 2.42 2.71 2.53 2.76
2.51** 2.03 2.52** 2.35 2.57
2.82 2.42 2.90* 2.82 2.98*
2.56* 1.94 2.26* 2.47 4.86**
people from other areas, describing their neighbours as “international
citizens” (i.e. people of different origins who they neither have met nor
interacted with before) or their own compound as a “university” (i.e.
advanced) and the other resettlement areas as merely “secondary
schools” (i.e. backward, undeveloped).
Eventually, this social disjuncture manifested into a physical sepa­
ration. The residents of NGO A raised funds to construct a wall around
their area. Entry to the community is via a gate that is locked from 10 pm
to 6am. Only the residents of NGO A have keys and are granted access
between these hours. The NGO itself did not support this construction of
the wall. One official said:
“I initially dissuaded them from putting up the gate because this is a
resettlement site, not a private subdivision. But I could not stop them
because they were really persistent and determined.” (Female, NGO
A official, May 11, 2018).
By creating a defensive barrier, social interactions between the
households in the NGO A resettlement and households in the other
resettlements were reduced, further reducing social interactions and
eroding trust.
6. Discussion
Planned resettlement is increasingly normalised and implemented
for a variety of reasons including conservation, poverty alleviation,
urban expansion and now climate change adaptation (Rogers and
Wilmsen, 2019). The Philippine government supports this practice
through legislation that mandates the resettlement of people from lo­
cations vulnerable to extreme weather events, such as estuaries, rail­
ways, landfill sites, riverbanks and shorelines. It seems that resettlement
in the name of climate change is expanding in the Philippines, as it is in
other parts of the world. In this regard the IFCP in Iloilo is an important
case – it has been lauded as a success and as such plans are afoot to
expand this approach as an adaptation response to climate change across
the country. As the detrimental effects of resettlement have been well
documented in other contexts, any claims to success warrant close
scrutiny.
Resettlement is often portrayed as a technocratic tool, rather than an
exercise in political power. The existing resettlement literature gives
scant attention to questions of procedural and distributive fairness,
although one such study of resettlement in China concluded that pros­
pects for just outcomes are poor (Wilmsen and Rogers, 2019). Elsewhere
in the climate justice literature, while considerations of procedural and
distributive justice are more common (Johnson, 2012; Graham et al.,
2015), the manner in which pre-existing inequalities interact with po­
litical power structures to shape the outcomes of adaptation projects
receives little analysis (Svarstad and Benjaminsen, 2020). This study
goes some way to fill these gaps. It is located at the confluence of both
these literatures, framing resettlement as an exercise in power. In doing
so, it contributes to the early literature that asks how climate change
adaptation responses might integrate questions of procedural and
distributional justice to ensure they alleviate rather than exacerbate
inequality.
The analysis of our survey and interview data found the benefits of
J. See and B. Wilmsen
the IFCP were not shared fairly within the cohort of resettled house­
holds. The wealthiest households were more likely to qualify to be
resettled by the NGO which provided the highest quality housing.
Households with political connections and the financial assets to service
loans and contribute to a micro-credit scheme were more likely to be
selected for this programme. In contrast, the poorest households were
more likely to be allocated to one of the other three NGOs, which pro­
vided less support with rehousing and re-employment. As a result,
poorer households tended to receive lower quality housing and services
and exhibited lower income growth post-resettlement than households
allocated to the better resourced NGO.
With regards to other studies of climate-related resettlement in the
Philippines, the substandard nature of housing at the resettlement sites
managed by NGOs B, C and D is consistent. For example, housing at
resettlements in Cagayan de Oro was found to be poor and cramped and
lacking in utilities, social services, and livelihood opportunities
(Carrascoet al., 2016b; Santiago et al., 2018). In Tacloban City, those
resettled after typhoon Haiyan could not access public transport to
travel to their former jobs, schools or social services (Espina and Canoy,
2019). In Cagayan de Oro City, resettlement acommodation was found
to be so unsuitable that the residents constructed substandard extensions
that did not meet national safety guidelines (Carrascoet al., 2016a). The
inadequacy of the housing and facilities in other climate-related reset­
tlements caused some resettlers to return to their former communities
(Environmental Science for Social Change, 2014; Yee, 2018).
Consistent with research conducted at other climate-related reset­
tlements in the Philippines, our research also makes apparent the in­
equalities of resettlement. Tanyag (2018) and Mangada (2016) find such
inequalities to be gendered with women taking on an unfair share of the
burden of rebuilding homes, securing relief assistance and seeking out
economic opportunities on top of their care responsibilities. This ac­
centuates and exacerbates the pre-existing vulnerabilities of women in
the Philippines (Mangada, 2016). Our research identifies that adapta­
tion interventions exacerbate and accentuate other pre-existing vul­
nerabilities such as power, political connections and socio-economic
standing. Just like the studies of Mangada (2016) and Tanyag (2018),
the vulnerabilities demonstrated at Iloilo are an expression of pre-
existing structural inequalities in the Philippines. And, it illustrates
that the costs of climate-change interventions are being externalised to
those affected by climate change rather than being absorbed by the
government (Su and Mangada, 2016).
Returning to Shi et al.’s (2016) definition of just adaptation, the IFCP
resettlement was unjust because it failed to provide resettlers with an
equal voice in planning and the decision making process and, as a result,
equitable access to housing, housing services, employment opportu­
nities, and protection from extreme weather events. This was not simply
a result of poor planning, in fact, the resettlement was planned as a
‘developmental climate resettlement’ based on international best prac­
tice policies. Instead power and politics intermingled to corrupt the
translation of the RAP into practice (Fig. 2). With the prospect of low
interest loans and quality housing on offer, local government officials
intervened to refer their political allies, friends and relatives into the
resettlement programme even though they were not directly threatened
by extreme weather events or living on the floodplain. This generated an
uneven procedural structure that provided the wealthy and politically
connected with climate resilient housing, while those living in harm’s
way were relegated to substandard, climate vulnerable housing. In this
regard, resettlement not only reproduced previous vulnerabilities, but
heightened intracommunity inequality as the resettlement community
became more stratified and even physically divided.
Our research adds to the growing body of research that demonstrates
how resettlement projects undertaken in the name of climate change
adaptation are subverted by local political processes, resulting in unjust
and potentially maladaptive outcomes (Barnett and O’Neill, 2011;
Arnall et al., 2013; Rogers and Xue, 2015). Politics and power are a
constant in adaptation interventions and shape procedural and
10
Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188
distributive justice. If we return to our earlier presentation of the at­
tempts in the environmental justice literature to broaden the definition
of justice, then our findings are broadly supportive of McDermott et al.’s
(2013, p. 416) call for the addition of context or “contextual equity” to
definitions of justice. They define this as the “pre-existing conditions
that limit or faciliate people’s access to decision-making procedures,
resources and thereby benefits”. A definition of just adaptation that in­
cludes the procedural and distributional domains should also incorpo­
rate contextual justice as: “distribution, procedure and the contextual
disposition of capabilities, access and power, all contribute to the degee
of (in)equity in the social condition” (McDermott et al., 2013, p. 424).
Any adaptation intervention that does not take into account local deci­
sion making inputs, access to resources and power relations is unlikely to
be equitable.
Our findings also reinforce the conclusions of a much larger body of
literature that finds resettlement projects around the world often exac­
erbate inequality and generate social discord at the local level (Katus
et al., 2016; Vanclay, 2017; Wilmsen, 2018b). The social cleavages seen
at the Iloilo project are reminicent of the thick descriptions of social
disarticulation found in research on development-induced resettlement
and most recently in the work of Milgroom and Ribot (2020). They
observe how power acts to determine access to finite resources during
resettlement resulting in social disarticulation. Indeed, this unhappy
history has led some to conclude that resettlement should only ever be
considered as a last resort, particularly as an adaptation response to
climate change (Johnson, 2012; Arnall, 2019; Miller, 2019; Wilmsen
and Rogers, 2019).
This principle is sound, however, as climate change intensifies in the
coming decades, some degree of resettlement will be unavoidable. If,
however, it continues to be framed as a technocratic endeavour divorced
from questions of real politics, resettlement undertaken in the name of
climate change adaptation is likely to reproduce, if not exacerbate,
inequality and social discord and, in doing so, undermine adaptation
efforts of at-risk communities. Our case study supports the position of
those taking a more cautionary approach to the use of resettlement as a
climate change adaptation response. It demonstrates that even a well-
funded resettlement project, devised and carried out in accordance
with international standards can easily be subverted by local political
processes, resulting in unjust and maladaptive outcomes.
To end on a more positive note, this research also demonstrates how
procedural and distributive justice could be improved in future reset­
tlement programmes. First, it highlights the importance of agency and
meaningful participation which goes beyond the mere provision of in­
formation (Black et al., 2011; Wilmsen and Webber, 2015). The
households of NGO A were given active roles in planning their own
resettlement. They were consulted and involved in every stage of the
project from planning to construction. They were also technically and
financially empowered to negotiate their interests with the state and
other institutions. Second, the research demonstrates that climate
adaptation interventions should not only provide a safe place to live, but
also support livelihood development (Mathur, 2013). Instead of
providing one-time cash compensation, NGO A promoted a community
savings programme which helped in the rehabilitation of its members’
livelihoods. This prevented an over-dependence on government support
and ensured that they had the means to meet their emerging needs and
self-determine their futures. Finally, this research emphasises the need
to consider the project-affected households as heterogeneous entities
that are highly differentiated with different socio-economic starting
points and relationships of power that can limit or strengthen their
adaptation to climate change during a state-driven intervention. Re­
sources and help should thus distributed based on needs: the greater the
need, the more adaptation resources are due (Grasso, 2007).
These lessons are not new. For many years scholars argued that
people should be considered ‘experts in their own lives’ (Miller, 2019, p.
151) and be given an active role in adaptation and development ini­
tiatives (Black et al., 2011; Gupte and Mehta, 2013; Wilmsen and
J. See and B. Wilmsen
Webber, 2015). They have reiterated that resettlement is more than a
technical process; it is a political tool that has the potential to exacerbate
pre-existing vulnerabilities (Levien, 2015; Wilmsen and Adjartey, 2020).
However, as Svarstad and Benjaminsen (2020) note, not much has
changed in practice. And so, we reiterate well-worn calls for meaningful,
two-way participation in resettlement. Here we draw further on the
work of McDermott et al. (2013). They call for participatory parity
whereby political and social obstacles that prevent some people from
participating whilst privileging othersis addressed. This is an extension
of their notion of “contextual justice” and a nod to the fundamental
interrelationships between the three domains of justice - procedural,
distributive and contextual. By incorporating participatory parity in
understandings of just adaptation, those affected by adaptation in­
terventions will be more fully supported to draw on their capacities to
determine their own futures.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Justin See: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing -
original draft, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Brooke
Wilmsen: Methodology, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation,
Writing - original draft, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Dr. Andrew van Hulten and two anony­
mous reviewers for comments and suggestions. Special thanks to the
residents, NGOs and the Iloilo City government for accommodating us
during fieldwork. The lead author is also grateful to the School of Hu­
manities and Social Sciences at La Trobe University for funding his
fieldwork.
References
Adger, N. (2006). Fairness in adaptation to climate change. Cambridge, Mass,
Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Adger, N., Paavola, J., Huq, S., Mace, M.J., 2006. Fairness in adaptation to climate
change. MIT press.
Adger, N., Quinn, T., Lorenzoni, I., Murphy, C., 2016. Sharing the Pain: Perceptions of
Fairness Affect Private and Public Response to Hazards. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geograph.
106 (5), 1079–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1182005.
Adger, N., Quinn, T., Lorenzoni, I., Murphy, C., Sweeney, J., 2012. Changing social
contracts in climate-change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3 (4), 330. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nclimate1751.
Arnall, A., 2019. Resettlement as climate change adaptation: what can be learned from
state-led relocation in rural Africa and Asia? Clim. Dev. 11 (3), 253–263.
Arnall, A., Thomas, D.S., Twyman, C., Liverman, D., 2013. Flooding, resettlement, and
change in livelihoods: evidence from rural Mozambique. Disasters 37 (3), 468–488.
Arroyo, I., Åstrand, J., 2019. Housing recovery outcomes after typhoon Haiyan in the
Philippines: a critical realist perspective. J. Crit. Realism 18 (2), 142–168. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2019.1605667.
Asian Coalition for Human Rights. (2009). Thinking CITY-WIDE in Iloilo City,
Philippines [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.achr.net/upload/
downloads/file_12022014154308.pdf.
Bankoff, G., 2001. Rendering the World Unsafe: ‘Vulnerability’ as Western Discourse.
Disasters 25 (1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00159.
Barnett, J. (2009). Justice and adaptation to climate change. Climate change and social
justice, 131.
Barnett, J., O’Neill, S.J., 2011. Islands, resettlement and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 2
(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1334.
Barrett, S., 2013. Local level climate justice? Adaptation finance and vulnerability
reduction. Global Environ. Change 23 (6), 1819–1829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2013.07.015.
Black, R., Adger, W.N., Arnell, N.W., Dercon, S., Geddes, A., Thomas, D., 2011. The effect
of environmental change on human migration. Global Environ. Change 21 (1),
S3–S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.001.
Brandstedt, E., Brülde, B., 2019. Towards a Theory of Pure Procedural Climate Justice.
J. Appl. Philos.
11
Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188
Burton, I., Huq, S., Lim, B., Pilifosova, O.,Schipper, E. L. (2002). From impacts
assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. In (Vol. 2, pp.
145-159).
Byrne, J., Glover, L., Martinez, C., 2002. Environmental justice: discourses in
international political economy. Transaction Publishers.
Caney, S., 2006. Cosmopolitan Justice, Rights and Global Climate Change. Canad. J. Law
Jurisprudence 19 (02), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0841820900004100.
Carrasco, S., Ochiai, C., Okazaki, K., 2016a. Impacts of resident-initiated housing
modifications in resettlement sites in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines. Int. J. Disaster
Risk Reduct. 17, 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.05.001.
Carrasco, S., Ochiai, C., Okazaki, K., 2016b. A Study on Housing Modifications in
Resettlement Sites in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines. J. Asian Architect. Build. Eng. 15
(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.15.25.
Cernea, M., 1995. Understanding and preventing impoverishment from displacement:
reflections on the state of knowledge. J. Refugee Stud. 8 (3), 245–264. https://doi.
org/10.1093/jrs/8.3.245.
Cernea, M., 1997. The risks and reconstruction model for resettling displaced
populations. World Dev. 25 (10), 1569–1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X
(97)00054-5.
Cernea, M., 2000. Risks, safeguards and reconstruction: A model for population
displacement and resettlement. Econ. Polit. Weekly 3659–3678.
Cernea, M., 2008. Compensation and benefit sharing: Why resettlement policies and
practices must be reformed. Water Sci. Eng. 1 (1), 89–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1674-2370(15)30021-1.
Clark, N., Chhotray, V., Few, R., 2013. Global justice and disasters. Geograph. J. 179 (2),
105–113.
Cruz, M. (2019). SGMA to expand Iloilo flood control project Manila Standard. Retrieved
from http://manilastandard.net/news/national/287591/sgma-to-expand-iloilo-
flood-control-project.html.
Dawson, N., Coolsaet, B., Martin, A. (2018). Justice and equity: emerging research and
policy approaches to address ecosystem service trade-offs.
De Sherbinin, A., Castro, M., Gemenne, F., Cernea, M.M., Adamo, S., Fearnside, P.M.,
Shi, G., 2011. Preparing for Resettlement Associated with Climate Change. Science
334 (6055), 456–457. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1208821.
M. Delos Santos Two City Hall Officials Face Raps for Favoritism 2017 Retrieved from
The Daily Guardian https://thedailyguardian.net/banner-news/two-city-hall-
officials-face-raps-favoritism/.
M. Delos Santos Non-City Residents got Relocation Lots: ICUPAO 2017 Retrieved from
The Daily Guardian https://thedailyguardian.net/banner-news/non-city-residents-
got-relocation-lots-icupao/.
Doberstein, B., Tadgell, A., Rutledge, A., 2020. Managed retreat for climate change
adaptation in coastal megacities: A comparison of policy and practice in Manila and
Vancouver. J. Environ. Manage. 253 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2019.109753.
Dodman, D., Mitlin, D., Co, J., 2010. Victims to victors, disasters to opportunities-
Community-driven responses to climate change in the Philippines. Int. Dev. Plann.
Rev. 32 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.2009.10.
Downing, T.E., Garcia-Downing, C., 2009. Routine and dissonant cultures: A theory
about the psycho-socio-cultural disruptions of involuntary displacement and ways to
mitigate them without inflicting even more damage. Dev. Dispossess. 225–253.
DPWH, 2005. Iloilo Flood Control Project (II), Component II, PH-P230: Resettlement
Action Plan for Stage 2 Project Affected Families. Bonifacio Drive, Port Area, Manila,
Philippines.
Duan, Y., McDonald, B. (2004). Involuntary resettlement as an opportunity for
development: The application of“ Resettlement with Development” in the People’s
Republic of China: Melbourne University Private, School of International
Development.
Environmental Science for Social Change. (2014). Rapid Assessment of the Performance
of Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction Approaches. Retrieved from https://essc.
org.ph/content/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ESSC-final-report_30June-2014.pdf.
Eriksen, S., Nightingale, A.J., Eakin, H., 2015. Reframing adaptation: The political nature
of climate change adaptation. Global Environ. Change 35 (C), 523–533. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014.
Espina, E. A., Canoy, N. A. (2019). Unpacking the post-Haiyan disaster resettlement
narratives of young Filipino women informal settlers in Tacloban City, Philippines.
Disasters. doi:10.1111/disa.12416.
Few, R., 2003. Flooding, vulnerability and coping strategies: local responses to a global
threat. Progr. Dev, Stud. 3 (1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1191/
1464993403ps049ra.
Fisher, S., 2015. The emerging geographies of climate justice. Geogr. J. 181 (1), 73–82.
https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12078.
Graham, S., Barnett, J., Fincher, R., Mortreux, C., Hurlimann, A., 2015. Towards fair
local outcomes in adaptation to sea-level rise. Clim. Change 130 (3), 411–424.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1171-7.
Graham, S., Barnett, J., Mortreux, C., Hurlimann, A., Fincher, R., 2018. Local values and
fairness in climate change adaptation: Insights from marginal rural Australian
communities. World Dev. 108, 332.
Grasso, M., 2007. A normative ethical framework in climate change. Clim. Change 81
(3–4), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9158-7.
Gupte, J., Mehta, L., 2013. Disjunctures in labelling refugees and oustees. In: The Power
of Labelling. Routledge, pp. 74–89.
Hino, M., Field, C.B., Mach, K.J., 2017. Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard
risk. Nat. Clim. Change 7 (5), 364–370. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3252.
Hirschon, R. (2000). The creation of community: well-being without wealth in an urban
Greek refugee locality. Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and
Refugees, Washington DC, The World Bank.
J. See and B. Wilmsen
Iuchi, K., Maly, E. (2016). Residential relocation processes in coastal areas: Tacloban City
after Typhoon Yolanda. Alka Sapat, Ann-Margaret Esnard, Coming home after
disaster: Multiple dimensions of housing recovery, Routledge, 209-225.
Japan International Cooperation Agency. (2013). Ex-Post Evaluation of Japanese ODA
Loan: Iloilo Flood Control Project. Retrieved from Japan: https://www2.jica.go.jp/
en/evaluation/pdf/2013_PH-P192_4.pdf.
Johnson, C.A., 2012. Governing climate displacement: the ethics and politics of human
resettlement. Environ. Polit. 21 (2), 308–328.
Katus, S., Suhardiman, D., Senaratna Sellamutu, S., 2016. When local power meets
hydropower: Reconceptualizing resettlement along the Nam Gnouang River in Laos.
Geoforum 72, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.03.007.
Klein, R., Eriksen, S., Næss, L., Hammill, A., Tanner, T., Robledo, C., O’Brien, K., 2007.
Portfolio screening to support the mainstreaming of adaptation to climate change
into development assistance. An Interdisciplinary. Int. J. Dev. Descript., Causes
Implicat. Climatic Change 84 (1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-
9268-x.
Kothari, U., 2014. Political discourses of climate change and migration: resettlement
policies in the M aldives. Geograph. J. 180 (2), 130–140.
P. Lena Iloilo City hosts int’l forum on sharing of DRRM best practices 2018 Retrieved
from Philippine News Agency https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1043229.
Levien, M., 2015. From primitive accumulation to regimes of dispossession. Econ. Polit.
Weekly 50 (22), 351–394.
Mahapatra, L. K. (1999). Resettlement, impoverishment, and reconstruction in India:
development for the deprived: Vikas Publishing House Private.
Maldonado, J. K., Shearer, C., Bronen, R., Peterson, K., Lazrus, H. (2013). The impact of
climate change on tribal communities in the US: displacement, relocation, and
human rights. In Climate change and indigenous peoples in the United States (pp.
93-106): Springer.
Mangada, L.L., 2016. Post-Haiyan adaptation and institutional barriers to women
survivors in Tacloban. Philippine Polit. Sci. J. 37 (2), 94–110. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01154451.2016.1196855.
Martin, A., 2013. Global environmental in/justice, in practice: introduction. Geograph. J.
179 (2), 98–104.
Martin, A., Akol, A., Gross-Camp, N., 2015. Towards an explicit justice framing of the
social impacts of conservation. Conservat. Soc. 13 (2), 166–178.
Martin, A., McGuire, S., Sullivan, S., 2013. Global environmental justice and biodiversity
conservation. Geogr. J. 179 (2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12018.
Mathur, H.M., 2013. Displacement and resettlement in India: The human cost of
development. Routledge.
McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., Schreckenberg, K., 2013. Examining equity: a
multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem
services. Environ. Sci. Policy 33, 416–427.
McMichael, C., Katonivualiku, M., Powell, T., 2019. Planned relocation and everyday
agency in low-lying coastal villages in Fiji. Geograph. J. 185 (3), 325–337. https://
doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12312.
Milgroom, J., Ribot, J., 2020. Children of Another Land: Social Disarticulation, Access to
Natural Resources and the Reconfiguration of Authority in Post Resettlement. Soc.
Nat. Resour. Access Revisited 33 (2), 184–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08941920.2019.1590668.
Miller, F., 2019. Exploring the consequences of climate-related displacement for just
resilience in Vietnam. Urban Studies 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0042098019830239.
Muggah, R. (2000). Through the Developmentalist’s Looking Glass: Conflict-Induced
Displacement and Involuntary Resettlement in Colombia. 13(2), 133-164. doi:
10.1093/jrs/13.2.133.
National Disaster Coordinating Council. (2009). Situation Report 33 on the Effects of
Typhoon Frank (Fengshen). Quezon City, Philippines Retrieved from https://
reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/
AF08756A504E59A48525749700629D7A-Full_Report.pdf.
O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R.M., 2003. Winners and Losers in the Context of Global Change.
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 93 (1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.93107.
Okereke, C., Dooley, K., 2010. Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to
avoided deforestation: towards a post-Kyoto climate agreement. Global Environ.
Change 20 (1), 82–95.
Oliver-Smith, A. (2009). Climate change and population displacement: disasters and
diasporas in the twenty-first century. Anthropology and climate change. From
encounters to actions, 116-136.
Oppenheimer, M., Glavovic, B. C., Hinkel, J., Wal, R. v. d., Magnan, A. K., Abd-Elgawad,
A., . . . Sebesvari., Z. (2019). Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands,
Coasts and Communities. In H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P.
Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J.
Petzold, B. Rama, N. M. Weyer (Eds.), IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and
Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.
Paavola, J., Adger, W.N., 2006. Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol. Econ. 56 (4),
594–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.015.
Philippine News Agency Gov’t to Build Medium-Rise Buildings as Relocation Sites by
2018 Sunstar Philippines https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/136379 2017
Retrieved from.
Porio, E., 2011. Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Resilience to Floods and Climate Change-
Related Risks among Marginal, Riverine Communities in Metro Manila. Asian J. Soc.
Sci. 39 (4), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853111X597260.
Porio, E., 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in Metro Manila
Challenging Governance and Human Security of Urban Poor Communities. Asian J.
Soc. Sci. 42 (1–2), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685314-04201006.
Rawls, J., 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
12
Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188
Republic of the Philippines Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (Republic Act
7279) 1992 Philippines Manila Retrieved from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/
1992/03/24/republic-act-no-7279/.
Republic of the Philippines Revised Guidelines on the “Gawad KALASAG”: Search for
Excellence in Disaster Risk Management and Humanitarian Assistance 2008 Quezon
City Philippines Retrieved from https://www.preventionweb.net/files/10875_
gawadkalasagguidelines20081.pdf.
Risse, M., 2009. The Right to Relocation: Disappearing Island Nations and Common
Ownership of the Earth. Ethics Int. Affairs 23 (3), 281–300. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1747-7093.2009.00218.x.
Rogers, S., Wilmsen, B., 2019. Towards a critical geography of resettlement. Prog. Hum.
Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518824659.
Rogers, S., Xue, T., 2015. Resettlement and climate change vulnerability: Evidence from
rural China. Global Environ. Change 35, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2015.08.005.
Santiago, J.S.S., Manuela, W.S., Tan, M.L.L., Saňez, S.K.B., Tong, A.Z.U., 2018. Agency-
driven post-disaster recovery: A comparative study of three Typhoon Washi
resettlement communities in the Philippines. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 27,
480–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.11.012.
Santiagudo, E. (2019). GMA Revisits Flood Control Project in Iloilo. Daily Guardian.
Retrieved from https://thedailyguardian.net/local-news/gma-revisits-flood-control-
project-in-iloilo/.
Schlosberg, D., Collins, L.B., 2014. From environmental to climate justice: climate
change and the discourse of environmental justice. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim.
Change 5 (3), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.275.
Schreckenberg, K., Franks, P., Martin, A., Lang, B., 2016. Unpacking equity for protected
area conservation. Parks 22 (2), 11–26.
Scudder, T. (2011). Development-induced Community Resettlement1. In F. Vanclay A.
Esteves (Eds.), New directions in social impact assessment: conceptual and
methodological advances (pp. 186 - 201). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sherwood, A., Bradley, M., Rossi, L., Guiam, R., Mellicker, B., 2015. Resolving post-
disaster displacement: Insights from the Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan
(Yolanda). Brookings Institution.
Shi, L., Chu, E., Anguelovski, I., Aylett, A., Debats, J., Goh, K., Vandeveer, S., 2016.
Roadmap towards justice in urban climate adaptation research. Nat. Clim. Change 6
(2), 131. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2841.
Smit, B., Pilifosova, O. (2001). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable
development and equity. In J. J. McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken,
K. S. White (Eds.), Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (pp. 877 -
912). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Su, Y., Mangada, L. L. (2016). Bayanihan after Typhoon Haiyan: Are We Romanticising
an Indigenious Coping Strategy? Report, Humanitarian Practice Network, August,
10.
Subong, E. (2011). The Iloilo Flood Control Project has come a Long Way. Retrieved from
http://www.ugnayan.com/ph/Iloilo/Iloilo/article/NHD.
Sunstar Iloilo. (2019). Iloilo City Wins Regional Gawad Kalasag. Retrieved from https://
www.sunstar.com.ph/article/1822292.
Svarstad, H., Benjaminsen, T.A., 2020. Reading radical environmental justice through a
political ecology lens. Geoforum 108, 1–11.
Tadgell, A., Doberstein, B., Mortsch, L., 2018. Principles for climate-related resettlement
of informal settlements in less developed nations: a review of resettlement literature
and institutional guidelines. Clim. Dev. 10, 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17565529.2017.1291401.
Tadgell, A., Mortsch, L., Doberstein, B., 2017. Assessing the feasibility of resettlement as
a climate change adaptation strategy for informal settlements in Metro Manila,
Philippines. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 22, 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2017.01.005.
Tanyag, M., 2018. Resilience, Female Altruism, and Bodily Autonomy: Disaster-Induced
Displacement in Post-Haiyan Philippines. Signs. J. Women Cult. Soc. 43 (3),
563–585. https://doi.org/10.1086/695318.
Taruc Manalang, R., Munemoto, J., Yoshida, T., Espina, C., 2002. A Study on Residents’
Self-built Improvements at MRB Dwelling Units in Metro Manila. J. Asian Architect.
Build. Eng. 1 (2), 2_177. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.1.2_177.
Tayona, G. (2018). ICUPAO Job Hires Lack Accountability. Panay News. Retrieved from
https://www.panaynews.net/icupao-job-hires-lack-accountability/.
Tayona, G. (2019). GMA: Iloilo’s Flood Control ‘Backbone of Progress’. Panay News.
Retrieved from https://www.panaynews.net/gma-iloilos-flood-control-backbone-of-
progress/.
Thomas, D.S.G., Twyman, C., 2005. Equity and justice in climate change adaptation
amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Global Environ. Change 15 (2),
115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.10.001.
USAID. (2013). An Assessment of Water Security, Development, and Climate Change in
Iloilo, Philippines, and the Tigum-Aganan Watershed. Retrieved from http://www.
adaptationlearning.net/sites/default/files/resource-files/An-Assessment-of-Water-
Security-Iloilo-Tigum-Aganan-Watershed-report.pdf.
Vanclay, F. (2017). Project-induced displacement and resettlement: from
impoverishment risks to an opportunity for development? Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal, 35(1), 3-21. doi:10.1080/14615517.2017.1278671.
Venot, J.P., Clement, F., 2013. Justice in development? An analysis of water
interventions in the rural South. Nat. Resour. Forum 37 (1), 19–30. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1477-8947.12002.
Wilmsen, B., 2016. After the Deluge: A longitudinal study of resettlement at the Three
Gorges Dam, China. World Dev. 84, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2016.04.003.
J. See and B. Wilmsen
Wilmsen, B., 2018. Damming China’s rivers to expand its cities: the urban livelihoods of
rural people displaced by the Three Gorges Dam. Urban Geography 39 (3), 345–366.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1328578.
Wilmsen, B., 2018. Is Land-based Resettlement Still Appropriate for Rural People in
China? A Longitudinal Study of Displacement at the Three Gorges Dam. Dev. Change
49 (1), 170–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12372.
Wilmsen, B., Adjartey, D., 2020. Precarious resettlement at the Bui Dam,
Ghana—Unmaking the teleological. Geograph. Res. 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1111/
1745-5871.12411.
Wilmsen, B., Rogers, S., 2019. Planned resettlement to avoid climatic hazards: What
prospects for just outcomes in China? Asia Pacific Viewpoint 60 (2), 118–131.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12232.
Wilmsen, B., Wang, M., 2016. Voluntary and involuntary resettlement in China: a false
dichotomy? Dev. Practice 25 (5), 612–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09614524.2015.1051947.
13
Global Environmental Change 65 (2020) 102188
Wilmsen, B., Webber, M., 2015. What can we learn from the practice of development-
forced displacement and resettlement for organised resettlements in response to
climate change? Geoforum 58, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2014.10.016.
World Bank. (2015). Making In-City Resettlement Work for the Poor. Retrieved from
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2015/09/07/making-in-city-
resettlement-work-for-the-poor.
World Commission on Dams. (2000). Dams and Development: A New Framework for
Decision-Making. Retrieved from UK and USA: https://www.internationalrivers.org/
sites/default/files/attached-files/world_commission_on_dams_final_report.pdf.
Yee, D.K.P., 2018. Constructing reconstruction, territorializing risk: imposing “no-build
zones” in post-disaster reconstruction in Tacloban City, Philippines. Crit. Asian Stud.
50 (1), 103–121.