Preventive Resettlement of Populations at Risk of Disaster - GFDRR

Chapter 7
Comparative Analysis of the Case Studies
By Sergio Carmona and Elena Correa
This chapter presents a comparative analysis and
the main conclusions from the cases studied in
the earlier chapters. It is expected that the lessons
learned in these experiences could be useful to
guide other resettlement programs designed to reduce
the risk of disasters.
1. Urbanization, Risk and
Vulnerability
One conclusion involves the factors that give rise to human
settlements in high-risk areas. In Argentina, Brazil
and Colombia, rapid urbanization without proper land
use planning, policies to provide housing for the poor
and supervision of settlements in at-risk areas, led lowincome
and marginalized segments of the population to
build houses in prone risk areas.
Poor people settle in areas that are either at-risk or unsuitable
for human settlement because they have no
other options. For example, in Guatemala, when the
most appropriate area for resettlement after the devastation
from Tropical Storm Stan was selected, it was
the one traditionally occupied by the Mayans until they
were forcibly removed during the Spanish conquest and
colonial period.
In addition, human settlements in at-risk areas exacerbate
exposure to hazards and their impacts because of
the lack of basic infrastructure, which, even when it exists,
is built by settlers without construction standards
or technical assistance. That was evident in Brazil and
Colombia. For example, in São Paulo, when families living
on the banks of streams discharged wastewater and
solid waste into the waterways, this caused sedimentation
and increased the likelihood of flooding. In Colombia,
when settlers excavated land on slopes to build
houses and roads, discharged wastewater, and deforested
the Andean forest, these activities contributed to
erosion and landslides—confirmed by a study commissioned
by the Capital District of Bogotá, as part of its
plan to rehabilitate the high-risk areas.
Poverty is another factor that intensifies the marginal
populations’ vulnerability to risks. In all the cases, the
population was at or beneath the poverty line, which
made them doubly vulnerable, as they could not satisfy
basic needs and confront emergencies.
In many cases, these settlements are considered “illegal”
because they do not comply with urban development
regulations and families lack the legal titles requested
by governmental agencies to build basic infrastructure.
This creates a vicious circle with severe consequences
for these groups and the city as a whole. Some efforts
are underway to break that pattern through programs
such as São Paulo’s “urbanization of favelas” and Bogotá’s
comprehensive slum upgrading program. They involve
(a) providing legal titles to land where there are no hazards,
(b) identifying at-risk zones, (c) establishing mitigation
measures, including resettlement, if exposure to
the risk cannot be otherwise reduced, and (d) improving
urban infrastructure—all of which integrate these
settlements with the formal city.
Lessons from the cases indicate the importance of landuse
planning and strengthening institutions—to make
the planning possible, as well as developing inclusion
policies for the poor, so they, too, can access adequate,
safe houses. This lesson is especially pertinent given
the rapid urbanization growth. By 2007, half the world’s
population lived in cities (UN-Habitat, 2007). And,
while the urban population is expected to increase from
0.8 billion to one billion from 2010-2050 in developed
countries, the number is expected to soar in developing
countries, from 2.7 billion to 5.4 billion. 1 If such
1
See World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision; World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision.
Chapter 7 Comparative Analysis of the Case Studies
107