Topic 3
Can we relocate some residents from environmentally vulnerable areas most prone to
natural disasters (e.g. bushfires, floods, hurricanes) and resettle them elsewhere? What
are the barriers and enablers? Are there good practices in preparing and managing
environment- or climate-related migration and resettlement?
With the increase of global surface temperatures and the high possibility of the likelihood
of events such as droughts and an increased intensity of storms, it is important to be
prepared and have plans in effect for the likely hood of increased levels of natural
disasters and how this will affect residents of vulnerable areas and the measures that
can be taken to either remove the risk from the residents through actions such as
relocation or measures to minimize the impact these disasters have on residents of
disaster prone areas. As more water vapour is evaporated and enters the atmosphere,
it fuels the storms and increasing not only their potency but also their size. With cyclone
prone areas in Australia such as the northern coast lines of the Northern Territory and
Queensland, measures have to be put in place to reduce the impact of these natural
disasters or consider possible areas which residents can be resettled.
Figure 1.1 (Gfdrr.org, 2020)
Figure 1.2 (Gfdrr.org, 2020)
One way of tackling the reduction of disasters is through the voluntary relocation of
populations in vulnerable areas. Migrating residents of hazard prone areas provides a
significant opportunity for reducing the risk of disasters and improving the adaption to
climate change. Along with the implementation of opportunistic migration there has
always been relocation involved with escaping both disaster and warfare prone areas.
As shown in figure 1.1, the number of affected people from disasters increasing yearly
due to the affects of climate change and is considered a likely driver of migration. This
report will investigate whether voluntary migration within Australia as an adaption
strategy to the affects of disasters is feasible. Factors such as the policies involved with
relocation strategies can play a part in the migration such as climate change policies and
the way nations tackle the issue.
With the increase in the number of risk reduction policies present encourage processes
such as back burning to reduce the impact of fires alongside the accommodation and
retreat strategies, it is very possible that some residents in disaster prone areas will
choose to migrate to safer locations. This would not only include the people that
voluntarily leave but also those who are forced to migrate due to disaster damage to their
main household or property. Migration is a natural step in someone’s life and an
individual is likely to migrate multiple times in their lifetime, influenced by different
motives such as environmental change, family situation, work opportunity and impact of
disasters. Migration is seen as an effective way to reduce the risk of disaster impact
(IPPC, 2007) and with climate change affecting the severity and number of disaster
cases, we are seeing more people migrate to safer locations. Vulnerable areas have
seen people relocate to safer locations which puts pressure on the surrounding cities in
areas such as housing, food supply and infrastructure (McLeman R, 2006).
Relocation in the past has shown us that the most successful cases are where the
provisions involved with the livelihood of the residents are a priority and the people are
fully involved and in control of the decision making and not put into the situation due to
exterior circumstances such as a disaster event. These relocation initiatives are made
possible through different government policies and schemes such as buy back schemes,
land swap schemes and the rezoning of hazard prone areas. We have seen these types
of schemes in the past with devastating events such as the 2009 Black Saturday
bushfires which resulted in the deaths of 173 people in Victoria (Kiem S, 2010).
In recent years, we have seen associations such as the National Climate Change
Adaptation Research Facility fund research projects into the study of pre and post
disasters looking at the behaviours and the attitudes of people affected by these events
to gather a better grasp on the possible relocation of residents in vulnerable areas or the
possible ways to reduce the impact of these events. Each of the projects gave an insight
on the opportunities involved and the possibility of what type of people would be
interested in voluntarily relocating to a less disaster-prone area. For a policy focusing on
resettling Australian residents, there has to be a willingness from the people in these
areas to voluntarily move and relocate. This does not necessarily have to be a formal
scheme, but the way we approach relocation.
When looking at the locations that have been affected by a natural disaster in regards to
the NCCARF research studies, it was shown that over a quarter of the population (Bird
D, 2010) was likely to move to a different location after the disaster occurred whether
this was still in the local area or moving to a larger city. It seems that although people
consider moving after a natural disaster occurs, it seems a majority of the population
does not consider voluntarily relocating due to the external forces surrounded with their
inhabitancy such as job security, family structure and familiarity with the surrounding
area. In regard to flood prone areas, 73% of the population was not willing or not
interested in moving to a flood safe area, showing that the people you target for such an
initiative to reduce the risk of disasters on populations important.
Knowing who is likely to move after a disaster occurs assists us in targeting people that
are more likely to voluntarily move before the event occurs initially which is the focus of
risk reduction migration. A study conducted by the NCCARF found that in Brisbane flood
prone areas, people located within coastal cities such as Mackay (Black R, 2011) had
limited choices of relocation within the city and many people were not willing to move
due to the mining sector being a large part of the economy, providing stable incomes for
many of the residents. It seems that a more reliable reasoning behind voluntary
relocation is often due to job opportunities, not necessarily surrounding the possible
affects of a flood in the area, as many people that live in these areas were also brought
up in the same surrounding areas and see it as part of living. Relocation seems to be
more likely when there is more opportunity to relocate closely, so relocation for disaster
prone areas is more likely if there is relocation site that is safe close enough to the original
inhabitancy.
Another thing to consider is the available financials associated with certain demographics
as many older residents lack the appropriate finances to relocate which reduces their
options significantly. It seems that the demographic that not only is available for voluntary
relocation but also has the resources to do so is the demographic of 35-40 year old’s
(King D, 2013), seeing many of the voluntary relocation residents being in their mid to
late 30’s (Haynes K, 2013). These people on average earnt middle range incomes and
were predominantly married with a couple children, so it could be assumed that with the
demographic that is aiming on relocating to safer areas could be due to external forces
such as family security and safety whilst older residents see less reason to leave not
only due to the reduction in availability but also due to the change in family structures.
A leading factor to whether people considered moving were also based on whether they
owned a permanent residence (Williams S, 2010) in the area or were renting and
therefore had less liability if they were to leave as they do not have to conduct in selling
their property and simply have to find a new residence and find a means of relocating
their belongings to the new property. Similar to this factor, those who had been newly
living in the area were more likely to be open to relocating (Williams S, 2010) compared
to the longer-term residents which shows the same correlation with renting vs mortgage
as long term residents are more likely to not be renting.
A leading correlation with the likelihood to moving is whether the individual has ties to
the area, through historical ties being brought up there, social ties with family and friends
also being close by, or ties with job security (Koob P, 2008). It seems that the factor of
disaster prone areas is not high on the list of reasons to relocate when there are strong
initial ties in these different areas and individuals are more likely to relocate if they are
renting, feel out of place and like they don’t belong or having a limited financial capacity
and not being able to sustain living in the area (Koob P, 2008). While disasters are a
factor that are taken into consideration, it is only one of many factors that are taken into
consideration.
A continuing trend seems to be that residents do not consider disasters or natural events
to be cause to change their lifestyle and change their way of living with a majority of
people living on coastline properties not likely to move due to coastal hazards such as
the encroachment of the sea, however they did see the importance of buy back schemes
and retreat policies so it seems as if people only consider the affects of a disaster after
it occurs and have quite a negative attitude towards the affect disasters will have on them
and have quite a disregard towards the topic which may be a big issue if trying to
implement a larger scale retreat and relocation strategy.
With the average age of residents in rural cities on the increase with younger people
seeking better lives for their families, it would not be wise to target relocation strategies
for towns with aging residents as they are less likely to voluntarily move and the
demographic that should be targeted is young families that are seeking safety which are
most likely to consider relocation. In regard to older populations, family also played a part
in the consideration of relocation but with most residents being permanent, many were
limited by financial factors and felt a sense of place in their current residence.
Australia has seen significant policy implications in regard to relocation and retreat
strategies where its shown around 15% (Hunter L, 2005) of the population present in
these disaster hazard zones are willing to consider relocating permanently to a safer less
disaster prone location. This target population present in the 15% will often be young
and mobile individuals (Hunter L, 2005) whilst those unable to cope with change are
more likely to stay. This results in some relocating for the negative factors involved with
living in a disaster prone area, and others relocating for the positive opportunities
elsewhere that isn’t related to disaster prone areas and may take advantage of policies
with relation to relocation and retreat.
It Seems that the attitudes of the community people live in play a large part in those who
remain and those who are willing to move, with locations driven by specific economic
industries such as mining less willing to relocate as their residence in the area is based
on the income and job security it provides, whilst younger people seeking opportunity for
themselves or a safer environment for their family are ones that should definitely be
targeted for a voluntary relocation strategy. With less resilient members of the community
leaving often sees the remaining community more unified and less likely to change their
residence, so as the number of residents leave, the less likely another resident is to leave.
The government policies and incentives that are put in place to relocate residents often
have a stronger impact on the younger individuals, but due to this trend we are seeing a
downward trend of economy and residence in smaller towns as younger residents are
seeking more opportunity elsewhere leaving behind an aging population that over time
provides less and less service. If these policies however are not present, towns will
continue to be vulnerable to climate change impacted natural events such as the floods
and cyclones we see across Australia, but there needs to find a balance of people leaving
for safety and opportunity but also having the backbone there to keep these disaster
prone areas afloat.