Post-disaster resettlement, development and

Post-disaster resettlement, development and change: a case study of the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran S. Ali Badri, Ali Asgary, A.R. Eftekhari and Jason Levy1

Planned and involuntary resettlement after natural disasters has been a major policy in postdisaster reconstruction in developing countries over the past few decades. Studies show that resettlement can result in significant adverse impacts on the resettled population. Conversely, a well-planned and managed resettlement process can produce positive long-term development outcomes.This article presents the results of a case study undertaken 11 years after the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran. During the reconstruction period, a policy of involuntary planned resettlement was pursued extensively.The socio-economic changes that occurred as a consequence of this policy of involuntary resettlement are analysed. Data were collected via a questionnaire survey that involved a sample of 194 relocated households (grouped into a settlement that later became a town). The paper shows that relocated families face difficult socio-economic challenges after relocation and regrouping.This is especially true with respect to employment, income, the empowerment of women and lifestyle issues. Keywords: Iran, Manjil earthquake, post-disaster resettlement, socio-economic changes

Introduction Rural settlements in developing countries suffer significant social, economic and physical impacts as a result of natural disasters (Osterling, 1979; Peacock, Killian and Bates, 1987; Hossain, 1993).While well-planned disaster recovery and development processes have the potential to improve the long-term stability of these communities, there are significant challenges. Resettlement, for example, is a common policy employed for postdisaster development and planning in urban and rural areas of developed and developing countries (Tamakloe, 1994; Hall, 1994). Post-disaster development policies have major positive and negative consequences for communities, in both the short and long term (Afolayan, 1987). On the one hand, if properly managed, disasters provide considerable opportunities to initiate valuable new development initiatives. On the other hand, disasters can reverse large-scale development efforts (erasing years of work overnight). In addition, resettlements (and other development programmes) can increase the vulnerability of a region to disasters and have negative social and economic ramifications. However, development programmes can be designed to reduce adverse impacts and minimise susceptibility to future disasters (UNDP, 2004). This paper presents the results of an investigation conducted 11 years after the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran. Of particular importance is the issue of resettlement: many Disasters, 2006, 30(4): 451−468. © The Author(s). Journal compilation © Overseas Development Institute, 2006. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

DISA 30(4).indb 451

26/10/2006 12:35:18

452

S. Ali Badri, Ali Asgary, A.R. Eftekhari and Jason Levy

believed that development changes through resettlement would drastically improve the well-being of the affected communities. Iran, the world’s sixth-most disaster-prone country, is situated in an area characterised by high seismic activity: the Alpe–Himalayan earthquake belt. In this region, natural disasters have killed, on average, 4,000 people a year over the past decade, affecting approximately 55,000 annually. On 21 June 1990, an earthquake measuring 7.5 on the Richter scale struck in northwest Iran, killing more than 40,000 people and leaving nearly 500,000 homeless. Most of those severely affected were rural residents; over 80 per cent were living in more than 700 villages. After the disaster, the main reconstruction policy question centred on resettlement: should villages be rebuilt in their original location, or should they be relocated in areas less prone to earthquakes? Moreover, should villages be integrated into larger population centres? And what would be the socio-economic impact of such actions? After considerable discussion, planners and policymakers decided to relocate a significant number of villages and to incorporate smaller villages in larger, pre-existing ones (Badri and Rafiean, 1993). In total, there were more than 100 cases of resettlement, integration or regrouping (Asgary, 1998). Planners and decision-makers faced an extremely complex and uncertain situation. What is more, few studies were available to provide insights into the long-term consequences of post-disaster resettlement and reconstruction in disaster-affected areas. Accordingly, this work attempts to fill the gap in the disaster literature, by investigating the long-term socio-economic ramifications of post-disaster development.The main purpose is to gain a better understanding of how involuntary planned relocation affects disaster-affected communities. Long-term socio-economic opportunities and challenges are examined. The paper is organised as follows: section two reviews the existing literature and theoretical background of post-disaster resettlement, development and planning. Section three outlines the research methodology and contains the case study. Section four presents the main findings. Finally, section five makes some policy recommendations and highlights the related implications for post-disaster planning.

Post-disaster resettlement and development changes The vast resettlement literature (Scudder and Colson, 1982; UN-Habitat, 1991;World Bank, 1994; Guggenheim, 1994) contains numerous references to involuntary resettlement caused by natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and storms), social upheaval (famine, labour migration, land appropriation and war) and development projects (dams, natural resource extraction, urban renewal and development) (World Bank, 1998; Picciotto, Van Wicklin and Rice, 2001). Organisations associated with involuntary resettlement decisions (governments, private sector entities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), etcetera) often make significant efforts to mitigate the negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts of resettlement through disaster planning and management (World Bank, 1990;Asian Development Bank, 1991; OECD, 1991; Davidson et al., 1993; Cernea, 1996; 1997; 1999; 2000; FAO, 1988). However, the root causes of

DISA 30(4).indb 452

26/10/2006 12:35:18

Post-disaster resettlement, development and change

453

resettlement lead to different disaster responses. In the case of natural disasters and social conflict, the resulting resettlement decisions must be taken relatively quickly: the disaster context typically requires reactive (emergency) decision-making—there is insufficient time for proactive planning and stakeholder consultation. Hence, these emergency resettlements are usually characterised by undesirable long-term socio-economic changes that affect the displaced population, such as poverty and malnutrition (World Bank, 1980; Mahapatra, 1991; Escudero, 1988; Downing, 2002).Yet, involuntary resettlements associated with development projects allow for more proactive, comprehensive and systematic planning by governments and/or private sector support (Gibson,1993; Mahaparta, 1999), providing more opportunities to engage the community in the decisionmaking process and mitigate the negative economic and social impacts on the displaced population (World Bank, 1998, p. 39; Cernea, 1999). Over the past 30 years, most of the involuntary resettlement literature (World Bank, 1994; WBED, 1996; McCully, 2001; WCD, 2000) has been concerned with large development projects. Because large numbers of people are often affected by development projects (especially in developing countries), donor agencies and governments regularly make concerted efforts to ensure that affected communities can become development beneficiaries rather than ‘victims’ (Alizadeh, 1994). Resettlement can result in significant adverse impacts on the resettled population (particularly the most vulnerable members of society) due to a number of factors, including: • the loss of shelter and land, and inadequate sanitation (leading to malnutrition and other health problems); an often precipitous decline in the quality of education and employment opportunities • (displaced individuals may no longer have access to agricultural lands and commercial enterprises); • a disruption in social support networks (social activities may never be restored and dispersed individuals may have trouble adjusting to life away from family and friends); and • the loss of cultural assets (Cernea, 1996). Frequently, houses in the newly resettled location are not adequate, notably for those engaged in livestock production and other agricultural activities (Mahapatra, 1999; Picciotto,Van Wicklin and Rice, 2001). Moreover, previous living standards are often not met and the resettlement process may destroy the existing socio-economic system, stimulating a decline in income levels (Konig and Teman, 2000; Nayak, 2000). Conversely, a well-planned and managed resettlement process can produce positive development outcomes, such as a more favourable socio-economic environment, including new jobs and better access to education and health facilities. For instance, housing conditions may improve and members of the resettled population may feel a sense of urban belonging, particularly if they have access to community services and a social support network. In addition, after relocation, people may own (or have access to) sufficient land to restore fully previous agricultural production. Most resettlement plans and policy efforts seek to achieve such positive development changes.

DISA 30(4).indb 453

26/10/2006 12:35:18

454


Over the past several decades, a number of successful resettlement practices have emerged in the context of specific projects from countries around the globe, including Bangladesh, China, Nepal and Vietnam (Zaman, 1996). According to these ‘best practices’, a resettlement plan should consider a number of issues: • First, careful attention should be paid to social, economic and health issues. This involves conducting a baseline social survey to identify stakeholders and potential losses. • Second, it is important to engage stakeholders in a meaningful participatory process and to disclose all relevant information. • Third, it is essential to adopt an appropriate compensation policy based on the market/ replacement value of acquired properties. • Fourth, compensation should be provided to all affected persons regardless of their tenure/ownership rights. • Fifth, the compensation policy should explicitly recognise all losses, including land, housing, business, income sources and displacement costs. • Sixth, the compensation package should provide multiple options, such as cash compensation, replacement land, small business grants and temporary/permanent project employment. It is vital to ensure that resettled persons are provided with basic civic amenities so that incomes and livelihoods can be restored. • Seventh, the resettlement process should pay special attention to the needs of the socially disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, such as single mothers, the disabled and ethnic minorities, in the resettlement process. • Eighth, it is very crucial that a strong organisation exists in order to implement resettlement, with assistance from community groups and NGOs. • Ninth, it is important that effective systems for monitoring and evaluating compensation and resettlement activities are created. Furthermore, a practical time frame should be established in the resettlement plan (Cernea, 1997; Burbridge, Norgaard and Hartshorn, 1988; Fernades, 1995). At the national level, assessments of resettlement policies and practices in a number of countries (for example, Brazil, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal and Sri Lanka) have identified key barriers to successful resettlement (Cernea, 1990). These include the absence of a national resettlement policy, inadequate compensation for lost assets, and insufficient institutional capacity for resettlement planning and implementation. International experiences of voluntary and involuntary resettlement reveal that it is difficult to achieve success, particularly when resettlement is carried out as part of development projects. Cernea (1990) notes that, in many countries, the displaced population faces a significant deterioration in its quality of life (in some cases members are obliged to return to their original settlement). While various factors contribute to the failure of resettlement policies, inadequate planning and management often play a major role.

DISA 30(4).indb 454

26/10/2006 12:35:18


455

Study area and methodology The study area is located in the Tarom region of Zanjan province in Iran (see Figure 1), which suffered because of the Manjil earthquake. On 20 June 1990, at 21.00 (British Summer Time)—00.30 local time—a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck in the Manjil area, some 100 kilometres southwest of the Caspian Sea in northern Iran. The towns of Lushan, Manjil and Rudbar (as well as approximately 700 villages) were totally destroyed, and at least 300 more villages were partly damaged. Some 40,000 people lost their lives, 60,000 were injured and 500,000 were made homeless (Bahrainy, 1998). Figure 1 The study area

Source: Iranian Survey Organizations, Digitised Maps of Iran, 2005

During the reconstruction period, some villages were rebuilt (without relocation) while others were relocated (to new nearby locations). Some villages were relocated and integrated into larger settlements. This rural ‘regrouping’ has both voluntary resettlement (at least semi-voluntary, as people were encouraged to move to the new location with full rights to resources) and involuntary resettlement (due to the earthquake) characteristics.

DISA 30(4).indb 455

26/10/2006 12:35:18

456


Table 1 Demography of the villages before and after the resettlement (1986–96) Village

1986

1991

1996

Households

Population

Households

Population

Households

Population

Ab–bar

453

2,249

659

3,442

860

4,338

Balklor

162

731

–

–

–

–

Jamal Abad

51

257

–

–

–

–

Source: Statistical Centre of Iran, 1986; 1991; 1996

A case study was undertaken in Ab-Bar, a relatively large village before the disaster, which became larger post-disaster when it was integrated into two other relocated villages (Balklor and Jamal-Abad), leading to the creation of a town in only a few years (see Table 1). For this region, the relocation and regrouping of disaster-affected communities was considered to be an adequate post-disaster development policy (Badri and Rafiean, 1993). For the purpose of this study, the community has been divided into a host community (pre-disaster Ab-Bar residents) and guest communities (pre-disaster Balklor and Jamal-Abad residents who were relocated to Ab-Bar). Moreover, in order to compare the changes, which took place after the introduction of the relocation and regrouping policies, pre- and post-earthquake (12 years after the earthquake) variables were considered. No consensus exists on the necessary time frame for measuring the longterm consequences of resettlement and disasters, and relatively little data are available on the socio-economic ramifications that arise after resettlement events (Enarson,2000). Data were collected using a questionnaire that was distributed to a randomly selected sample of households in 2001, nearly 11 years after the earthquake. At the time of this study, 923 households were living in the newly developed town of Ab-Bar. Using the Cochran sampling method (Cochran, 1977) it was found that a total of 194 households were needed, of which 54 households were from Balklor, 10 from Jamal Abad and 130 from Ab-Bar (the host community). A mixture of qualitative and quantitative analytical methods was employed. Most of the questions were designed using the Likert technique. The latter involves the presentation of a set of attitude statements to respondents, who are asked to express their agreement or disagreement. Each degree of agreement is given a numerical value from one to five. Cross-tabulation, Chi-square statistics and nonparametric tests, such as the McNemar test, were used to test the significance of changes (Siegel, 1956) before and after the earthquake.

Development changes Modifications to economic activities Farming, horticulture (olive trees), livestock and honey production were among the most important local economic activities of the households in the study area before the earthquake. Guest communities experienced significant impacts because of the earthquake, losing not only their original economic resources, but also their land rights

DISA 30(4).indb 456

26/10/2006 12:35:18


457

Table 2 Number of olive trees before and after resettlement

15 and less

Host community

Relocated community

Integrated settlements

Frequency

Number of olive trees

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

No.

51

44

19

40

70

84

%

39.5

34.1

29.7

62.5

36.3

43.5

No.

26

20

19

16

45

36

%

20.2

15.5

29.7

25

23.3

18.7

No.

41

51

22

8

63

59

%

31.8

39.5

34.4

12.5

32.6

30.6

201 and more

No.

11

14

4

0

15

14

%

8.5

10.9

6.3

0

7.8

7.3

Total

No.

129

129

64

64

193

193

16–45

46–200

(in their new location): the resettlement policy provided relocated households with land (for the construction of homes) but not agricultural resources (although they had full land rights in their previous location). To capture accurately the consequence of resettlement, households were invited to state the amount of land they owned before and after the earthquake.The results showed no significant change in land ownership; however, approximately 96 per cent of the land owned by guest communities was left unattended.The resettled population noted that this was due primarily to the physical distance to their land (exacerbated by a lack of transportation facilities). While olive tree ownership increased from an average of 74 to 104 trees per hostcommunity household, the average number of olive trees owned by guest communities decreased significantly over this period (before and after resettlement), from an average of 57 to 17 trees per household (see Table 2).The increase in the number of olive trees among host-community households is mainly due to government support for olive production (and olive by-product industries) in the region after the disaster. By contrast, it appears that guest communities have not been able to benefit from government support for this budding industry. Livestock activity, which was among the main economic activities in both the host and the guest communities declined significantly, especially among the guest communities. Before the disaster and relocation, at least 50 per cent of the households in the guest communities reported having 50 or more animals. Currently, only 17 households pursue livestock activities as their main source of income.This decline can be explained by the fact that, after the earthquake, new houses were built without adequate consideration of animal husbandry requirements. Specifically, when the new settlement became a town it was almost impossible for the newly relocated residents to engage in animal husbandry, as the social, environmental and physical aspects of houses designed and built after the earthquake (compact size, for instance) precluded livestock activity. Hence,

DISA 30(4).indb 457

26/10/2006 12:35:18

458


Table 3 Number of animals owned by households before and after the resettlement Host community

Relocated community


Frequency

Number of

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

No.

99

115

13

54

112

169

%

76.7

89.1

20.3

84.4

58

87.6

No.

16

10

18

5

34

15

%

12.4

7.8

28.1

7.8

17.6

7.8

No.

9

3

24

2

33

5

%

7

2.3

37.5

3.1

17.1

2.6

101 and more

No.

5

1

9

3

14

4

%

3.9

0.8

14.1

4.7

7.3

2.1

Total

No.

129

129

64

64

193

193

livestock

15 and less

16–50

51–100

those households from the guest communities that still wanted to continue with animal husbandry either have returned to their original location or commute between their former and current locations (Table 3). Unlike other economic activities, honey production has increased in both communities, especially in the relocated community.The main reason is that the production of honey does not require travelling long distances and is less labour and land intensive than other pursuits. Currently, more than 87 per cent of households in the relocated community engage in honey production, although it is not their main economic occupation. Changes in employment and income Some changes in the employment structure of the region after the earthquake have been observed. First, after the integration of villages, the number of employed heads of households decreased slightly, from 187 to 164 (Table 4), mostly due to retirement. Few previously unemployed household heads now have jobs. Moreover, most of the jobs are now part-time—the average number of working months per year has fallen from nine to eight.Typically, before the earthquake, only one person per family was employed. In the post-disaster period, however, the data show that the number of families with multiple members working has risen, especially in the host community. The findings also suggest that the type of employment before and after the earthquake has changed.The percentage of persons employed in the agriculture sector has decreased in both communities. This decline is particularly acute in the relocated community, due primarily to its loss and its limited access to agricultural resources.Yet, there has been an increase in the level of employment of the host community in the public and private sector service industries (Table 5).

DISA 30(4).indb 458

26/10/2006 12:35:18


459

Table 4 Employment status of the head of households before and after the earthquake

Employed

Unemployed

Retired

Total

Host community

Relocated community


Frequency

Occupational condition of head of household

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

No.

123

110

64

54

187

164

%

94.6

84.6

100

84.4

96.4

84.5

No.

6

2

0

0

6

2

%

4.6

1.5

–

–

3.1

1

No.

1

18

0

10

1

28

%

0.8

13.9

–

15.6

0.5

14.5

No.

130

130

64

64

194

194

To garner more detail on employment quality and income changes after the disaster, the respondents were asked to say whether they agreed or disagreed with or were neutral about several statements, including: ‘before the earthquake our income was low but our expenditures were also low, but after the earthquake our income has remained low, but our expenses have increased’. A majority of respondents in both the guest and host communities agreed with this first statement, as regrouping and relocation from village to town and the adoption of a new lifestyle added new expenses to the budgets of households (Figure 2, Part A). In another statement, they were questioned about the diversity of their income sources before and after disaster reconstruction. While the results are mixed for the host community, a majority of respondents in both guest communities believed that their sources of incomes had become less diverse than prior to relocation (as many lost most of their agricultural sources of income Table 5 Employment in different job categories before and after resettlement

Agriculture

Services

Construction

Government

DISA 30(4).indb 459

Host community

Relocated community


Frequency

Job sector

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

No.

51

37

40

14

91

51

%

41.1

33

62.5

25.9

48.4

30.7

No.

21

20

4

5

25

25

%

16.9

17.9

6.3

9.3

13.3

15.1

No.

17

10

20

35

37

45

%

13.7

8.9

31.3

64.9

19.7

27.1

No.

35

45

0

0

35

45

%

28.2

40.2

–

–

18.6

27.1

26/10/2006 12:35:18

460


and livestock). Almost 50 per cent of respondents in the new settlement believe that their sources of income have changed from multiple sources to a single source (Figure 2, Part B).This can be seen also in their responses to statements dealing with self-sufficiency before and after the earthquake. Again, a majority of relocated households thought that they were more self-sufficient before the earthquake. This is likely because they now must purchase additional goods that they used to produce for themselves before the disaster. This has not only been the case for the guest communities, but also for the bulk of the members of the host community: nearly 50 per cent of host-community residents believe that they were more self-sufficient before the disaster (Figure 2, Part C). In addition, a majority of respondents disagreed with the statement that ‘our income has increased as compared to the pre disaster era’ (Figure 2, Part D). Figure 2 Respondents’ answers to statements regarding changes in employment and income after the disaster

DISA 30(4).indb 460

26/10/2006 12:35:19


461

Table 6 Testing the relationship between resettlement and job stability Variables

McNemar Chi-squared test Chi2

Sig.

Result

The whole community

10.73

0.001

No significant change in job stability after the earthquake

The host community

0.485

0.485

Significant change in job stability after the earthquake

The relocated community

14.70

0.000

No significant change in job stability after the earthquake

The whole community

22.329

0.000

No significant change in job satisfaction after the earthquake

The host community

3.674

0.055



23.758

0.000


The whole community

36.000

0.000

No significant change in income satisfaction after the earthquake

The host community

7.848

0.005



33.029

0.000


The whole community

13.565

0.000

No significant change in income stability after the earthquake

The host community

0.457

0.499



21.333

0.000


Job stability

Job satisfaction

Income satisfaction

Income stability

Several other questions were posed in order to compare and test job stability and job and wage/income satisfaction before and after the resettlement (Figure 2, Parts E and F). The Chi-squared test results show that, with the exception of job and income stability for the host community, negative changes occurred in other employment aspects (including job satisfaction and income level) in both the host and guest communities after resettlement and integration (Table 6). Changes in women’s employment Gender is an important issue in relation to disaster and development changes. The employment of women in post-disaster situations constitutes a vital area of study that has recently attracted greater attention in the disaster and development community. If a woman’s labour is diverted from food crop production to cash crop production, family nutritional standards can be compromised (Cagatay, 2001, p. 7). In these circumstances, rural women may be lured into unsafe working conditions and less secure employment (Fordham, 2003, p. 69). Under extra stress due to the disaster, women also typically bear a disproportionate burden in terms of the additional domestic and income-generating work that has to be done to ensure survival following a disaster event.This may lead to a decline in the level of social development of the community as a whole. In the long term, though, it is also possible that the new role of women in a post-disaster context

DISA 30(4).indb 461

26/10/2006 12:35:19

462


will result in an increase in their economic and political participation, yielding a net benefit for society (UNDP, 2004). Significant changes have taken place with regard to the employment, and working conditions, of women in the study area 12 years after the disaster.Traditionally, women, especially in the study area, have played an important role in the economy of households and the management of natural resources; in the study area, the main activities of women before the earthquake were housekeeping and helping on the family farm. Their customary role in the labour force outside the family (as paid workers, for example) was minimal. After resettlement, the role of women in the labour force (and specifically, the paid labour force) increased significantly: women needed to earn income to replace lost resources, such as business equipment, crops and livestock, and to offset rises in family budget expenditures. While it was not traditionally acceptable for women to work outside the home before the earthquake, now it is not only acceptable, but also there appears to be competition among women for jobs. However, women belonging to the host community fill available governmental and office posts, leaving women from the guest communities with the daily paid jobs, which are mostly agricultural based and on nearby large farms. It follows that integration has increased the participation rate of women in marker driven and non-family economic activities.Yet, there is a considerable difference between the two communities in terms of the types of jobs available to women. In short, the participation of women in their family’s agricultural activities decreased significantly. Before the earthquake, for instance, 58 women in the study sample were engaged in such practices.This number fell to 21 after the earthquake. Moreover, the diminishing participation rate of women in family farming activities has been more significant for the relocated community as compared to the host community. The data clearly show that women are more involved in paid work.Within the sample families there was only one woman working as a wage earner outside the home before the earthquake.After the earthquake, however, this number increased to 14 (with all 13 additional women coming from the relocated communities). The potential for a greater share of paid employment for women must be seen in the context of other post-disaster socio-economic changes that have occurred in the area. Specifically, those women who obtain access to paid employment must accept lower wages and inferior working conditions (Cagatay, 2001, p. 7). When comparing the pre- and post-disaster situation, there is also a rising trend in relation to the participation of women in governmental jobs. Before the earthquake, the government only employed five women in the sample families, rising to 14 after the disaster.Yet, unlike labour jobs, women of the host community hold all of the governmental jobs.There are also differences in the working conditions of women from the host and the guest communities. Before the relocation, women from the host community had to travel around 3.3 kilometres to reach their workplace. After the earthquake, this fell to an average of 1.4 kilometres.Women of the relocated community, by contrast, must travel an average of 9.6 kilometres to reach their place of work. Another difference in the working conditions of women from the two groups is that most women labourers are part-time workers, employed for an average of five months of the year.

DISA 30(4).indb 462

26/10/2006 12:35:19


463

Although the employment of women supplements the family budget, not all households are satisfied with women working outside of the family home: more than 80 per cent of respondents (from both the host and guest communities) do not want women to be employed as paid workers. Moreover, social and organisational structures often exclude women employees (Anderson and Woodrow, 1998, p. 15). It is clear that after the disaster and resettlement, the workload of women increased dramatically (involving, for instance, more caregiving responsibilities and a longer working day). It was determined that women from relocated households are disproportionately employed in underpaid and non-formal sectors of the economy, a conclusion that is consistent with the results of other studies (Anderson, 1994). In addition, traditional expectations and home-based responsibilities limit the mobility and participation of women. Changes in households’ consumption and lifestyle Two fundamental changes after the earthquake and resettlement concern consumption patterns and the increasing role of money and the market (in both the family and the local economy). In a relatively self-sufficient economy, based on production for selfconsumption, money and the market play a relatively minor role (except for some particular industrial goods).The integration of villages and resettlement altered the traditional economic system, replacing it with a new system based on a division of labour and a greater role for market institutions. In such a system, the dependency of households on non-farm incomes increases since more money is required to satisfy the growing need to purchase goods in the market. In turn, this transforms the consumption patterns and lifestyles of displaced communities. A comparison between households’ self-produced and consumed goods before and after resettlement and integration reveals a sharp decline in the ability of households to produce goods for their own use (Table 7). As another measure of change in the economy and lifestyle of households, one can look at their financial arrangements, particularly the demand for loans (from banks Table 7 Households’ consumption of self-produced goods before and after the disaster and resettlement

Low

Medium

Much

DISA 30(4).indb 463

Host community

Relocated community


Frequency

Produced for self-consumption

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

No.

51

111

3

57

54

168

%

39.5

86

4.7

90.5

28

87.5

No.

61

18

37

6

98

24

%

47.3

14

57.8

9.5

50.8

12.5

No.

17

0

24

0

41

0

%

13.2

–

37.5

–

21.2

–

26/10/2006 12:35:19

464


Table 8 Loan consumption pattern of households before and after the earthquake and integration

Production

Host community

Relocated community

Integrated Settlements

Frequency

Loan consumption area

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

Before disaster

After disaster

No.

11

18

8

15

19

33

%

27.5

24.3

61.5

38.5

35.8

29.2

Consumable and Durable Goods

No.

8

14

3

10

11

24

%

20

18.7

23.1

25.6

20.8

21.2

Housing

No.

21

25

2

6

23

31

%

52.5

33.3

15.4

15.4

43.4

27.4

No.

0

17

0

8

0

25

%

–

22.7

–

20.5

–

22.2

No.

40

74

13

39

53

113

Other

Total

or other financial institutions). The survey results show that demand by households for loans rose significantly during the post-disaster period: households reported using loans mostly for daily purchases, housing construction, and to procure other goods (Table 8).

Conclusion and policy recommendations Dramatic and complex changes occurred in the study area after the disaster and resettlement. Planners and policymakers used the disaster to resettle affected villagers and to create a new town. While the plan was partially successful—increasing economies of scale led to improvements in the educational and health infrastructure—there were many undesirable and unpredicted socio-economic consequences for the affected households. Specifically, relocated families lost access to their natural resources, resulting in a decline in their capacity to cope with the post-disaster situation. Competition for resources and jobs further weakened social networks and reduced cooperation among the members of the resettled population. While the earthquake and relocation led to new economic activities, many families were exposed to poverty: productive farmers became unemployed (or were forced into casual labour), and households with various sources of income before the earthquake became increasingly dependent on a single source of income.The employment challenges of the displaced population were often overlooked by planners and policymakers, and became more acute over time. Despite government investments after the displacement, particularly in the service sector, the first generation of the displaced population did not have enough skills to gain employment and the second generation did not have an opportunity to acquire new jobs due to the socio-political dominance of the host community. Accordingly, much of the resettled

DISA 30(4).indb 464

26/10/2006 12:35:19


465

population had to engage in agricultural pursuits in their previous villages in order to survive. In both the host and guest communities, the most important outcome of integration was the greater role of women in the market. After the earthquake, women of the host community could often take advantage of new job opportunities, especially in the public service sector, while women of the relocated community faced more competition for low paying jobs. The resettlement policy in the study area may have been successful in reducing the earthquake disaster risk (by relocating villagers), yet the basic goals of sustainable development remain primarily unmet (permanent job creation, adequate income and improved quality of life).This is due to challenges in finding meaningful employment, limited land and water resources, changing consumption patterns and unequal access to resources and opportunities. To reduce the negative economic impacts of resettlement, several measures must be implemented, including: • strengthening production capacity and skills (through training and technology transfer); • a diversification of economic activities (through the establishment of new economic activities and industries consistent with the rural environment); • increased financial support for the most vulnerable communities; and • a more balanced approach to the use of natural resources.

Correspondence Ali Asgary, Emergency Management Program, School of Administrative Studies, Atkinson Faculty of Liberal and Professional Studies,York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada. Telephone: +416 736 2100 ext. 22879; fax: +416 736 5963; e-mail: [email protected].

Endnotes 1

S. Ali Badri is Assistant Professor, Department of Human Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Iran; Ali Asgary is Assistant Professor, Emergency Management Program, School of Administrative Studies, Atkinson Faculty of Liberal and Professional Studies,York University, Canada, and Adjunct Professor, University of Tehran, Iran; A.R. Eftekhari is Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran; and Jason Levy is Acting Chair and Assistant Professor, Applied Disaster and Emergency Studies, Brandon University, Canada, and an affiliate faculty member of the Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, US.

References Afolayan, A.A. (1987) ‘The Sosa Resettlement Project: A Study in Problems of Relocation’. Habitat International. 11(2). pp. 43–57. Alizadeh, M. (1994) Economic Losses in 1990’s Earthquake of Northern Region of Iran. National Disaster Prevention Centre of Iran, Tehran.

DISA 30(4).indb 465

26/10/2006 12:35:19

466


Anderson, M. (1994) ‘Understanding the disaster-development continuum’. Focus on Gender. 2(1). pp. 7–10. Anderson, M. and P.Woodrow (1998) Rising from the Ashes: Development Strategies in Times of Disaster.Lynne Rienner, London. Asgary,A. (1998) A Decision Support Systems for Management of Natural Hazards Risks within the GIS Environment. International Symposium on Information Technology and Natural Hazards’ Risk Management, 4–6 February, Bangkok, Thailand. Asian Development Bank (1991) Guidelines for Social Analysis of Development Projects. Asian Development Bank, Manila. Badri, S.A. and M. Rafiean (1993) The Evaluation of Reconstruction Alternatives in Damaged Rural Areas: Case of Earthquake stricken areas of Iran. Eighth International Seminar on Earthquake Prognostics, 27–29 September, Tehran, Iran. Bahrainy, H. (1998) ‘Urban Planning and Design in a Seismic-Prone Region (The Case of Rasht in Northern Iran)’. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 124(4). pp. 148–181. Burbridge, P., R.B. Norgaard and G.S. Hartshorn (1988) Environmental Guidelines for Resettlement Projects in the Humid Tropics. FAO Environment and Energy Papers. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. Cagatay, N. (2001) Trade, Gender and Poverty. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, NY. Cernea, M.M. (1990) Poverty Risks from Population Displacement in Water Resources Development. Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) Development Discussion Paper. No. 355. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Cernea, M.M. (1996) Impoverishment Risks and Livelihood Reconstruction: A Model for Resettling Displaced Populations. World Bank, Washington, DC. Cernea, M.M. (1997) ‘The Risks and Reconstruction Model for Resettling Displaced Populations’.World Development. 25(10). pp. 1569–1588. Cernea, M.M. (1999) ‘The Need for Economic Analysis of Resettlement: A Sociologist’s View’. In M.M. Cernea (ed.) The Economics of Involuntary Resettlement: Questions and Challenges. World Bank,Washington, DC. Cernea, M.M. (2000) ‘Risks, Safeguards, and Reconstruction: A Model for Population Displacement and Resettlement’. In M.M. Cernea and C. McDowell (eds.) Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees. World Bank, Washington, DC. pp. 11–55. Cochran, W.G. (1977) Sampling Techniques. Third edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., London. Davidson, F. et al. (1993) Guidelines for Managing Urban Relocation and Resettlement. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, and the World Bank, Washington, DC. Downing, T.E. (2002) ‘Creating Poverty: The Flawed Economic Logic of the World Bank’s Revised Involuntary Resettlement Policy’. Forced Migration Review. 12(1). pp. 13–14. Eeiksen, J. (1999) ‘Comparing the Economic Planning for Voluntary and Involuntary Resettlement’. In M. Cernea (ed.) The Economics of Involuntary Resettlement: Questions and Challenges. World Bank,Washington, DC. Enarson, E. (2000) A Gender Analysis of Work and Employment Issues in Natural Disasters. Final report prepared for the International Labour Organization (ILO)’s InFocus Programme on Crisis and Reconstruction. ILO, Geneva. Escudero, C.R. (1988) Involuntary Resettlement in Bank Assisted Projects: An Introduction to the Legal Issues. Legal Department, World Bank, Washington, DC. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1988) Environmental Guidelines for Resettlement Projects in the Humid Tropics. FAO, Rome. Fernades, W. (1995) The Impact of Displacement on Women from the Weaker Sections. Paper presented at the International Conference on Development-Induced Displacement and Impoverishment, Refugee Studies Programme, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, 3–7 January.

DISA 30(4).indb 466

26/10/2006 12:35:19


467

Fordham, M. (2003) ‘Gender, Disaster and Development, The Necessity for Integration’. In M. Pelling (ed.) Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World. Routledge, London. pp. 57–74. Gibson, D. (1993) The Politics of Involuntary Resettlement:World Bank-supported Projects in Asia. PhD dissertation, Duke University, Ann Arbor, MI (University Microfilms). Guggenheim, S.E. (1994) Involuntary Resettlement:An Annotated Reference Bibliography for Development Research. World Bank, Washington, DC. Hall, A. (1994) ‘Grassroots Action for Resettlement Planning: Brazil and Beyond’. World Development. 22(12). pp. 1793–1809. Hossain, M. (1993) ‘Economic effects of riverbank erosion: Some evidence from Bangladesh’. Disasters. 17(1). pp. 25–32. Konig, D. and D.Teman (2000) ‘The Effects of Resettlement on Access to Common Property Resources’. In M. Cernea and C. McDowell (eds.) Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees. World Bank, Washington, DC. Mahapatra, L.K. (1991) ‘Development for Whom? Depriving the Dispossessed Tribals’. Social Action. 41(3). pp. 271–287. Mahapatra, L.K. (1999) Resettlement, Impoverishment and Reconstruction in India: Development for the Deprived. Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi. Manga, L.R. (1994) ‘Resettlement of displaced people in connection with the Nylon Urban Upgrading Project in Douala, Cameroon’. In C.C. Cook (ed.) Involuntary Resettlement in Africa: Selected papers from a conference on environment and settlement issues in Africa. World Bank Technical Paper. No. 227. Africa Technical Department Series. World Bank, Washington, DC. pp. 71–80. McCully, P. (2001) Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams. Zed Books Ltd., London. Nayak, R. (2000) ‘Risks Associated with Landlessness’. In M. Cernea and C. McDowell (eds.) Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees. World Bank, Washington, DC. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1991) Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Involuntary Displacement and Resettlement in Development Projects. Development Assistance Committee, OECD, Paris. Osterling, J.P. (1979) ‘The Peruvian Disaster and the Spontaneous Relocation of Some of its Victims: Ancashino Peasant Migrants in Huayopampa’. Mass Emergencies. 4. pp. 117–120. Peacock, W.C., C. Killian and F. Bates (1987) ‘The effects of disaster damage and housing aid on household recovery following the 1976 Guatemalan earthquake’. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 5(1). pp. 63–88. Picciotto, R., W.Van Wicklin and E. Rice (2001) Involuntary Resettlement: Comparative Perspectives. World Bank Series on Evaluation and Development.Vol. 2. Transaction Publishers, London. Scudder,T. and E. Colson (1982) ‘From welfare to development: A conceptual framework for the analysis of dislocated people’. In A. Hansen and A. Oliver-Smith (eds.) Involuntary Migration and Resettlement: The problems and responses of dislocated people. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. pp. 267–287. Siegel, S. (1956) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Statistical Centre of Iran (1986) Censuses Report of 1986. Statistical Centre of Iran, Tehran. Statistical Centre of Iran (1991) Censuses Report of 1991. Statistical Centre of Iran, Tehran. Statistical Centre of Iran (1996) Censuses Report of 1996. Statistical Centre of Iran, Tehran. Tamakloe, M.A. (1994) ‘Long-Term Impacts of Resettlement:The Akosombo Dam Experience’. In C.C. Cook (ed.) Involuntary Resettlement in Africa: Selected papers from a conference on environment and settlement issues in Africa. World Bank Technical Paper. No. 227. Africa Technical Department Series.World Bank, Washington, DC. UN-Habitat (1991) Evaluation of Relocation Experience. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, Nairobi. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2004) Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development. UNDP, New York, NY.

DISA 30(4).indb 467

26/10/2006 12:35:19

468


WBED (World Bank Environment Department) (1996) Resettlement and Development:The Bankwide Review of Projects Involving Involuntary Resettlement,1986–1993. WBED Paper No. 032. Resettlement Series.World Bank, Washington, DC. WCD (World Commission on Dams) (2000) Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London. World Bank (1980) Social Issues in Bank Financed Project with Involuntary Resettlement. OMS (Operational Manual Statement) 2.33. February. World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank (1990) ‘Operational Directive 4.30: Involuntary Resettlement’. Operational Manual. World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank (1994) Resettlement and Development:The Bankwide Review of Projects Involving Involuntary Resettlement 1986–1993. WBED, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank (1998) Involuntary Resettlement. Operational Policy and Background Paper. No. 103. World Bank, Washington, DC. Zaman, M.Q. (1996) ‘Development and Displacement in Bangladesh:Toward a Resettlement Policy’.Asian Survey. 36(7). p. 7.

DISA 30(4).indb 468

26/10/2006 12:35:20