CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter states the related literature and studies relevant conducted by

researchers that may support the present study.

In recent years, there has been a number of research discussing the relations

between poverty and natural disasters. One of which is the body of research on

housing projects. Housing is described by Adam (2020) as “material object that can

be seen and felt or refer to the action or process of providing a house.” The housing

industry, according to Danso-Wiredu (2018), is a crucial tool for promoting human

welfare and economic growth.

According to the UN report on 2020, natural catastrophes induced by climate

change have increased dramatically over the past 20 years. These disasters have

resulted in 1.3 million fatalities and unimaginable amounts of damage all over the

world. While the unbreakable report from the World Bank found that poor households

are more than twice as likely to be affected by disasters and climate change than other

households because they frequently reside in areas that are more vulnerable, have

subpar housing standards, and have little to no access to credit or insurance.

The study of flood and coastal flood control in Madukoro Area, Semarang City,

Indonesia conducted by Jatmiko (2018) shows that many inhabitants preferred to stay

and adapt the hazards than to leave their residential places. Gomersall (2018)

asserted that in most cases, resettlement is an involuntary process that frequently

sparks disputes between many parties, notably those involved with the government

and those who are being relocated. Consequently, researchers studying planned

resettlement have concluded that it is a challenging developmental process that

necessitates a careful evaluation of the variables that encourage individuals and

communities to relocate.
 Miller (2019) states that those who have been forcibly displaced, resettlement

in response to climate change creates new risky environments. People living with the

flood's resettlement program indicate that it is not typically the risk of climate change

that dominates such landscapes but rather the daily risks of earning a livelihood,

repairing community ties, and establishing connections to place Myanmar Delta. It is

evident that resettling as a reaction to climate concerns carries risks, notably in terms

of compromising people’s autonomy to design their own adaption plans. He concluded

that to achieve resilience, decisions on whether, when, and how to resettle (or move)

must be made by communities and individuals.

In an article by Lujala & Walelign (2022) it was stated that most programs have

prioritized relocating the vulnerable or affected communities away from their original

place of residence without giving destination places a high priority and as a result,

important livelihood elements that go beyond engaging in the construction of housing

in the resettlement area have been overlooked.

Naw naw (as cited in Kapur, 2019) defines livelihood as an employment and

income-generating activities that individuals get engaged in with the goal of

maintaining their standard of living. According to several research, building livelihoods

requires households’ capabilities to meet economic requirements or take advantage

of new chances (Liu et al., 2020). Resettlement program is closely related with the

deterioration of livelihoods of the rural community and the decline of agricultural

productivity in the traditionally settled areas. Nonetheless, different scholars contend

that forced resettlement or relocation causes significant social and economic

problems. The ultimate objective of resettlement is to guarantee and support

individuals’ socio-economic potential advancement to raise their salaries and level of

limited access to their sources of income (Mamude & Alemu, 2021).

Shi et al. (2022) note that the resettlement in their study in China, disrupted the

population’s normal livelihood activities causing their capital to decline and change

their lifestyle. Xu et al. (2022) concluded that relocation changes the lifestyle of

resettlers profoundly because they must change their farming-dependent living way

and adapt to their new job opportunities, new houses, new schools, new roads, and

social-ecological system, etc.

In the study conducted by Nikuze et al. (2019), it was found out that in the pre-

relocation stage, the relocation process induced several impacts on various financial

assets described by many households as financial instability. Similarly, as cited in the

article of Saharan et.al. (2018) and the study of Xu et al. (2022) livelihoods assets are

linked; many households reported that the loss of income led to the loss of

investments, savings, and access to loans specific to the far-away resettlers.

As one way of lowering the current disaster risk, national and local

governments, frequently supported by international funding agencies, engage in

resettlement and relocation processes. The National Housing Authority was tasked to

“develop and implement a comprehensive and integrated housing program which shall

embrace, among others, housing development and resettlement, sources and

schemes of financing, and delineation of government and private sector participation”.

NHA satisfies the housing requirements of low and marginal income, as well as

informal settler, families in need of long-term shelter after disasters like typhoons,

landslides, earthquakes, and fires to relocate to safer areas. But while this may lessen

people’s exposure to danger, it can lead to numerous other problems that make

individuals more vulnerable than they were before (Johnson et al., 2021).
 Villanueva (2020) delves into the challenges and opportunities of sustainable

post-disaster resettlement in the Philippines. According to him, access to government

services and employment is far from social connections, place of origin and place of

work. The study found that long processes of development and integration are difficult

to achieve if the social, cultural and economic needs of resettlers are neglected.

In accord to the study of Tejero, et al. (2021), entitled Empowering Three High-

risk Communities of Iligan City, Philippines in the Creation of Barangay Risk-Sensitive

Shelter Plans, findings showed that the households from the three high-risk barangays

live in danger zones, which are vulnerable to disasters. They are living on unsecured

and in unsafe house structures but 70% of households from the three barangays are

relocated to safe settlements. Its findings highlighted the importance of the

households’ initiatives in protecting their current relocation site by planting trees and

Vetiver grass and most importantly, the livelihood program that is given to them along

with the housing program.

Collado and Orozco (2020) examined the current policies that shape eviction

narratives among urban poor during resettlements in the Philippines. The analysed

data show that resettlement experiences are stories of survival under impoverished

conditions. Despite a law that supposedly ensures these rights for relocators, their

experience with relocation is characterized by a lack of housing amenities or badly

constructed units aside from not having instant access to necessities like power and

water. The lifestyles of the relocated population are severely strained by the high

expense of transportation and the absence of employment.

In most related studies on livelihood impacts of resettlements, status of these

relocated households is mostly in not so good condition. Although Palagi (2020) in her

study about the impact of relocation decision making to outcomes at relocation

and administrative centres improves quality of life, improves urban planning and

resettlement, it is yet evident that without proper planning and inputs of the

beneficiaries, and connectivity with other programs such as livelihood programs,

housing projects wouldn't meet its objectives in providing a quality life to the vulnerable

households.

Ong et al. (as cited in Filho et al., 2021) states that the relief and developed

community of an island has built a perception for a long time that "the best time to build

back better and stronger is in the wake of a disaster" [93,94]. The case of Tacloban

City in the Build-Back-Better housing reconstruction program as a response on the

coastal disaster management, reveals that resettled residents continue to face

challenges, especially in terms of livelihood, as resettlement sites are inaccessible and

remote from employment opportunities.

The studies mentioned confirmed that the relocation sites provided by the

different housing programs affected the livelihood status of the beneficiaries. Several

studies furtherly noted that relocating the vulnerable households had little effect on

their safety from disaster risks; rather, it increased their vulnerability to daily risks of

surviving—financial instability (Nikuze et al., 2019; Mamude & Alemu, 2021; Shi et al.,

2022; Xu et al., 2022; Miller, 2019). Studies proved that the high cost of transportation

and the lack of employment severely constrain the lifestyles of the relocated

population. Furthermore, Jatmiko (2018); Villanueva (2020); and Palagi (2020)

emphasizes the need of participation of resettlers in decision-making throughout the

resettlement process to have more organic and sustainable resettlements.

Theoretical Framework
 This study is supported by the theory of G. C. Galster and G. W. Hesser--

Housing satisfaction theory. One of the earliest definition of living satisfaction is

developed by them— “to assess the judgment of an individual or family regarding the

degree to which their current circumstance corresponds with their ideal living situation

and future expectations”. Their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with housing depends on

the current situation as does the need for permanent changes. According to Galster

(1987) and Diaz-Serrano (2006) Housing satisfaction is directed by three factors: the

objective characteristics of the household, the objective features of the housing

environment and the subjective well-being defined by their own perceptions, values

and ambitions. The focus of satisfaction with all the authors of this theory is directed

at the subjective housing satisfaction that contrasts among households or different

family life cycles. If there is housing dissatisfaction in a particular life cycle, there

arises a need to change the housing characteristics or to change the housing

opportunity. In this segment, the housing satisfaction theory could be linked to

Morris’s theory of housing adjustment, which also stems from housing discontent, and

is based on cultural standards of living, the lower the housing satisfaction, the more

likely the move to another residential unit or type. To answer this failure, the theory of

Auguste Comte, Positivists Housing theory explains the reliance of economic status

to the dwelling unit and how the dwelling unit increases its economic value.

The theories are believed to be relevant to the study being conducted by the

researchers as the study focuses on the impact of the housing project to the livelihood

satisfaction of the beneficiaries as stated in Housing satisfaction theory. Thus, the

factors in the theory will be the primary focus of this study-- the objective

characteristics of the household, the objective features of the housing environment,

and the subjective well-being defined by their own perceptions, values and ambitions.

As to Comte’s Positivists Housing theory, the livelihood satisfaction of the beneficiaries

of the population.