Post-Disaster Resettlement

Abstract

The previous case study following the July 2000 Payatas trash slide shows that resettlement is a strategy frequently adopted by the Philippine authorities in the aftermath of disaster. However, resettlement through geographical relocation is usually considered as the worst alternative to spur people’s resilience (e.g., Davis, 1978; Oliver-Smith, 1991; Quarantelli, 1984). Resettlement is a very complex process that goes beyond the mere rehousing of the survivors. It implies the social reconstruction of homes, social and political ties, and livelihoods at large (e.g., Aysan and Oliver, 1987; Cernea, 1997). These ties are rooted in long cultural, social, economic, and political histories (e.g., Aysan and Oliver, 1987; Quarantelli, 1984; Scudder and Colson, 1982) and are often constrained by structural forces (e.g., Wisner et al., 2004). These links are further manifested in visible or invisible cultural symbols that are very much associated with particular places and therefore, hardly transposable to new settlements. Reestablishing such a community-place relationship in a new environment requires a long period of time that is contrary to the collective wish of disaster survivors to settle back as quickly as possible (e.g., Davis, 1978; Scudder and Colson, 1982). For these reasons, resettlement often fails to foster post-disaster resilience (Oliver-Smith, 1991).