A Multi-Scalar Approach for Assessing Costs and Benefits of Risk Reduction Alternatives for the People and the City: Cases of Three Resettlements in Visakhapatnam, India

Abstract

Resettlement undertaken with the objective of reducing disaster risk often narrowly focuses only on reducing hazard exposure. However, when resettlements are analyzed from the perspective of holistic development outcomes, including livelihood conditions, health implications, social cohesion and employment opportunities, they are often found to be lacking. Apart from this contrast between considerations of disaster risk and everyday socio-economic risks at the household or settlement level, resettlement programs also lack a clear focus on achieving wider regional development goals including poverty reduction, economic growth and environmental protection. This relates to the sectorization of attitudes to disaster risk and the lack of integration with development concerns across multiple actors involved. This paper offers an approach: (1) to systematize costs and benefits; and using these (2) to assess policy alternatives that could maximize the beneficial outcomes for the resettlement intervention as well as improve overall sustainability for the urban areas they are set in. This paper first situates “risks” within a larger context of structural risks, and then uses the framework of asset accumulation to recognize the changes experienced by the people as costs or benefits. For this, it goes beyond the resettlement site to a broader regional perspective of the city and reflects on the long-term historical trends as well as future risks created by the intervention in the context of urbanization processes and increasing climate variability. To illustrate the use of this approach in assessing intervention alternatives, the paper analyzes three empirical case studies representing in-situ, voluntary and involuntary resettlements from urban Andhra Pradesh in India.

Modeling the Impacts of Urban Flood Risk Management on Social Inequality

“…One course of action associated with these activities is to relocate existing informal settlements to the newly developed land (Johnson, 2018). However, despite the ostensible parsimony of relocation and resettlement schemes, several documented policy cases show the importance of ensuring that migration away from the floodplain is a carefully managed process which does not inadvertently increase poverty and inequality (Jain & Bazaz, 2020). Forcible evictions, which are commonly associated with the “high efficiency, low equity” paradigm described above (e.g., Amoako, 2016; Watson, 2014), violate human dignity and may not work as intended (Amoako & Inkoom, 2018; Jain & Bazaz, 2020).…”

“…Forcible evictions, which are commonly associated with the "high efficiency, low equity" paradigm described above (e.g. Watson, 2014;Amoako, 2016), violate human dignity and may not work as intended (Amoako & Inkoom, 2018;Jain & Bazaz, 2020). The failure of many such programs emphasises the interconnected nature of urban systems and the myriad factors which determine flood risk (Amoako et al, 2019), leading many urban development experts to suggest that these policies should be considered only as a last resort (Satterthwaite, 2001;Johnson, 2018;Jain & Bazaz, 2020).…”

“…However, despite the ostensible parsimony of relocation and resettlement schemes, several documented policy cases show the importance of ensuring that migration away from the floodplain is a carefully managed process which does not inadvertently increase poverty and inequality (Jain & Bazaz, 2020). Forcible evictions, which are commonly associated with the “high efficiency, low equity” paradigm described above (e.g., Amoako, 2016; Watson, 2014), violate human dignity and may not work as intended (Amoako & Inkoom, 2018; Jain & Bazaz, 2020). The failure of many such programs emphasizes the interconnected nature of urban systems and the myriad factors which determine flood risk (Amoako et al., 2019), leading many urban development experts to suggest that these policies should be considered only as a last resort (Jain & Bazaz, 2020; Johnson, 2018; Satterthwaite, 2001).…”

“…Forcible evictions, which are commonly associated with the “high efficiency, low equity” paradigm described above (e.g., Amoako, 2016; Watson, 2014), violate human dignity and may not work as intended (Amoako & Inkoom, 2018; Jain & Bazaz, 2020). The failure of many such programs emphasizes the interconnected nature of urban systems and the myriad factors which determine flood risk (Amoako et al., 2019), leading many urban development experts to suggest that these policies should be considered only as a last resort (Jain & Bazaz, 2020; Johnson, 2018; Satterthwaite, 2001). Overall, it is imperative to develop risk management policies in partnership with communities (Mitra et al., 2017), which is identified as a hallmark of the “high efficiency, high equity” ideal to which the SDGs and the Sendai Framework aspire (Pelling, 2020).…”

Rethinking Urban Risk and Resettlement in the Global South

“…This assessment of costs and benefits borne by different actors at different scales from an intervention could be understood from the perspective of the individual household or neighbourhood scale as well as from the perspective of the city scale (Jain and Bazaz 2020).…”