the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 10 Jan 2024
Risk reduction through managed retreat? Investigating enabling conditions and assessing resettlement effects on community resilience in Metro Manila
Abstract. Managed retreat, a key strategy in climate change adaptation for areas with high hazard exposure, raises concerns due to its disruptive nature, vulnerability issues and overall risk in the new location. On-site resettlement or near-site retreat are seen as more appropriate and effective compared to a relocation far from the former place of living, however, these conclusions often refer to only a very limited set of empirical case studies or do not sufficiently consider different context conditions and phases in relocation. Against this background, this paper examines the conditions and factors contributing to community resilience of different resettlement projects in Metro-Manila. In this urban agglomeration reside an estimated 500,000 informal households, with more than 100,000 occupying high-risk areas. In light of the already realized and anticipated climate change effects, this precarious living situation exposes families, already socio-economically vulnerable, to an increased risk of flooding. The response of the Philippine government to the vexing problem of informal dwellers has been large-scale relocation from coasts, rivers, and creeks to state-owned sites at urban fringes. Whereas only very few resettlement projects could be realized as In-City projects close to the original living space. The study employs a sequential mixed-method approach, integrating a large-scale quantitative household survey and focus group discussions (FGDs) for a robust comparison of resettlement types. Further, it reveals community-defined enabling conditions for managed retreat as climate change adaptation strategy.
Results indicate minor variations of well-being conditions between In-City and Off-City resettlement, challenging the expected impact of a more urban setting on resilience. Instead, essential prerequisites for resettlement involve reduced hazard exposure, secure tenure and safety from crime. Beyond these essential conditions, social cohesion and institutional support systems emerge as significant influencers for the successful establishment of well-functioning new settlements. With this findings, the study contributes to the expanding body of literature on managed retreat, offering a comprehensive evaluation based on extensive datasets and providing entry points for the improvement of retreat as a climate change adaptation strategy.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1474 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1474 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-50', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jan 2024
Overall, it is an excellent contribution, the findings of which significantly advance the state of research which the authors have presented very well. The methodological approach is well considered and very well documented. The classification of the results is for the most part convincing. However, there are some issues that need to be adressed:
- Please clarify whether retreat, relocation and resettlement are synonyms or define different approaches. If they are considered as synonysms please make use of only one of these terms. Otherwise, please explain the differences.
- A fundamental question is whether the relatively small selection of 3 or 7 case studies for in- and off-citiy resettlement is sufficient to draw general conclusions about the advantages and disadvantages of the two strategies such as " The second major insight of the assessment is that post-relocation conditions only slightly vary between the two resettlement types"
- It is surprising that access to services of general interest (health care, education, culture etc.) was not considered as enabling factor. I can be assumed that in-city resttlement areas perform much better because of their proximity to infrastructure clusters
- The policy recommendations are rather generic. One would like to see more specific recommendations regarding the possible need for amendments to existing legislation and policies for resettlement in the Philippines
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-50-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hannes Lauer, 05 Feb 2024
Dear referee,
thank you very much for your overall positive response to our paper and research. We also appreciate the specific issues you raised and the valuable thoughts. In response, we would like to address your comments with the attached document. We plan to work on a revised version of the paper as soon as all potential comments and reviews are received.Best
Hannes Lauer ( on behalf of all authors)
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-50', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Feb 2024
This research investigates crucial and timely issues around managed retreat options. It represents a thorough literature review on the subject along with the relevant background on the case study. The research methodology is robust, and its implementation is well justified. The research provides interesting results, particularly in comparing the in-city and off-city relocations that have already occurred. However, there is room for improvement in the presentation of both methodology and results, requiring further clarification.
Introduction: It is not clear what the national water code (1979), based on the danger areas identified, is about. It is mentioned that it does not include flood probability and vulnerability, but what does it include for defining flood risk zones? And how the new settlement locations are identified? Do people know about the flood probability, vulnerability, and exposure of new areas before their relocations?
Figure 1: This figure is confusing: a circular graph, particularly with the arrow connecting the outcome to the start, indicates an iterative process. However, the data collection and analysis process from phases 1 to 3 was a one-off process. The way it is presented in Figure 1 implies that the entire process has been repeated. A linear graph can better explain the process of this study.
Figure 1: If the whole process is connected, with each step building upon the findings of the preceding one, this should be shown by directed arrows indicating the direction of input and output. The type of data transferred between steps can also be shown in these areas, e.g., ‘enabling factors for resilient retreat’.
Figure 1 and methodology: I do not understand how the factors identified in the FGD, which is the second step, were already included in the household survey and were then evaluated in phase 3. Is it that the predefined factors identified and included in the HH survey are only ranked (but not identified) in the FGDs? In this case, how is Phase 3 built upon the finding of phase 2? Please elaborate a bit more on the relationships between the three phases and why the analysis needed to be done in separate phases.
The overarching survey questions need to be presented, particularly because the survey and FGD questions are not attached as SM.
Line 218: Mai should be May
While graphs are shown for all questions, explaining the content of the graphs in the text is redundant.
Table 2: why an aggregated response on the previous settlement is presented instead of separate in-city and off-city responses to allow for comparison with the current settlement?
Limitations: the on-site facilities and services of the new settlements are not included in the analysis. For example, availability or access to basic services might be related to the already available basic services in the new sites rather than their distance from the city. In addition, the period of time since the relocations is also important in what people think about social cohesion or even experiencing flood and there might be a difference between those who moved recently and a long time ago. These kinds of limitations can be acknowledged in the paper.
Future study: More granular analysis of relationships among factors and demographic characteristics of the population (age, gender, income, etc.)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-50-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hannes Lauer, 15 Feb 2024
Dear referee,
thank you very much for your comment. We appreciate your interst in the topic and our paper. The specific issues you raised are valuable for improving the paper and will be considered for the revised version. In an attachment, we are responding to your comments in detail.
Best
Hannes Lauer
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hannes Lauer, 15 Feb 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-50', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jan 2024
Overall, it is an excellent contribution, the findings of which significantly advance the state of research which the authors have presented very well. The methodological approach is well considered and very well documented. The classification of the results is for the most part convincing. However, there are some issues that need to be adressed:
- Please clarify whether retreat, relocation and resettlement are synonyms or define different approaches. If they are considered as synonysms please make use of only one of these terms. Otherwise, please explain the differences.
- A fundamental question is whether the relatively small selection of 3 or 7 case studies for in- and off-citiy resettlement is sufficient to draw general conclusions about the advantages and disadvantages of the two strategies such as " The second major insight of the assessment is that post-relocation conditions only slightly vary between the two resettlement types"
- It is surprising that access to services of general interest (health care, education, culture etc.) was not considered as enabling factor. I can be assumed that in-city resttlement areas perform much better because of their proximity to infrastructure clusters
- The policy recommendations are rather generic. One would like to see more specific recommendations regarding the possible need for amendments to existing legislation and policies for resettlement in the Philippines
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-50-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hannes Lauer, 05 Feb 2024
Dear referee,
thank you very much for your overall positive response to our paper and research. We also appreciate the specific issues you raised and the valuable thoughts. In response, we would like to address your comments with the attached document. We plan to work on a revised version of the paper as soon as all potential comments and reviews are received.Best
Hannes Lauer ( on behalf of all authors)
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-50', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Feb 2024
This research investigates crucial and timely issues around managed retreat options. It represents a thorough literature review on the subject along with the relevant background on the case study. The research methodology is robust, and its implementation is well justified. The research provides interesting results, particularly in comparing the in-city and off-city relocations that have already occurred. However, there is room for improvement in the presentation of both methodology and results, requiring further clarification.
Introduction: It is not clear what the national water code (1979), based on the danger areas identified, is about. It is mentioned that it does not include flood probability and vulnerability, but what does it include for defining flood risk zones? And how the new settlement locations are identified? Do people know about the flood probability, vulnerability, and exposure of new areas before their relocations?
Figure 1: This figure is confusing: a circular graph, particularly with the arrow connecting the outcome to the start, indicates an iterative process. However, the data collection and analysis process from phases 1 to 3 was a one-off process. The way it is presented in Figure 1 implies that the entire process has been repeated. A linear graph can better explain the process of this study.
Figure 1: If the whole process is connected, with each step building upon the findings of the preceding one, this should be shown by directed arrows indicating the direction of input and output. The type of data transferred between steps can also be shown in these areas, e.g., ‘enabling factors for resilient retreat’.
Figure 1 and methodology: I do not understand how the factors identified in the FGD, which is the second step, were already included in the household survey and were then evaluated in phase 3. Is it that the predefined factors identified and included in the HH survey are only ranked (but not identified) in the FGDs? In this case, how is Phase 3 built upon the finding of phase 2? Please elaborate a bit more on the relationships between the three phases and why the analysis needed to be done in separate phases.
The overarching survey questions need to be presented, particularly because the survey and FGD questions are not attached as SM.
Line 218: Mai should be May
While graphs are shown for all questions, explaining the content of the graphs in the text is redundant.
Table 2: why an aggregated response on the previous settlement is presented instead of separate in-city and off-city responses to allow for comparison with the current settlement?
Limitations: the on-site facilities and services of the new settlements are not included in the analysis. For example, availability or access to basic services might be related to the already available basic services in the new sites rather than their distance from the city. In addition, the period of time since the relocations is also important in what people think about social cohesion or even experiencing flood and there might be a difference between those who moved recently and a long time ago. These kinds of limitations can be acknowledged in the paper.
Future study: More granular analysis of relationships among factors and demographic characteristics of the population (age, gender, income, etc.)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-50-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hannes Lauer, 15 Feb 2024
Dear referee,
thank you very much for your comment. We appreciate your interst in the topic and our paper. The specific issues you raised are valuable for improving the paper and will be considered for the revised version. In an attachment, we are responding to your comments in detail.
Best
Hannes Lauer
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hannes Lauer, 15 Feb 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 288 | 146 | 27 | 461 | 11 | 17 |
- HTML: 288
- PDF: 146
- XML: 27
- Total: 461
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Hannes Lauer
Carmeli Marie C. Chaves
Evelyn Lorenzo
Sonia Islam
Jörn Birkmann
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1474 KB) - Metadata XML