Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 02 March 2023
DOI 10.3389/fclim.2023.1032547
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
François Gemenne,
University of Liège, Belgium
REVIEWED BY
Elisa Calliari,
University College London, United Kingdom
Sirkku Juhola,
University of Helsinki, Finland
*CORRESPONDENCE
Annah Piggott-McKellar
a.piggottmckellar@qut.edu.au
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to
Climate Mobility,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Climate
RECEIVED 30 August 2022
ACCEPTED 02 February 2023
PUBLISHED 02 March 2023
CITATION
Piggott-McKellar A and Vella K (2023) Lessons
learned and policy implications from
climate-related planned relocation in Fiji and
Australia. Front. Clim. 5:1032547.
doi: 10.3389/fclim.2023.1032547
COPYRIGHT
©2023 Piggott-McKellar and Vella. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction
in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s)
are credited and that the original publication in
this journal is cited, in accordance with
accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which
does not comply with these terms.
Lessons learned and policy
implications from climate-related
planned relocation in Fiji and
Australia
Annah Piggott-McKellar*and Karen Vella
School of Architecture and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD,
Australia
Planned Relocation is a form of mobility in response to climate-related shocks
and slow onset change. While the primary focus of the seminal Foresight
report on Migration and Environmental Change dealt with mobility processes of
migration and displacement, planned relocation was discussed as a viable, yet
fraught adaptation strategy. Since the publication of the Foresight report in 2011,
considerable research into planned relocation has progressed understanding, in
part due to the emerging case study examples globally over the last 10 years.
The authors of this article have undertaken research in communities across
Australia and Fiji who have initiated and undertaken planned relocation processes,
to varying degrees of completion and success. As part of the Research Topic—
Climate Migration Research and Policy Connections: Progress Since the Foresight
Report—in this article we look back at the lessons that emerged from the
Foresight report, and provide key insights from our experiences, as well as through
drawing on the broader literature, and through doing so oer lessons learned,
and policy insights for planned relocation across these regions, and beyond. This
research is especially relevant given the context of planned relocation in these
two nations: Australia, a country that has experienced severe fires and flooding
events over the last few years, which have raised important questions around
the role planned relocation may play in future national adaptation discussions
and planning, with buy-back schemes occurring across the country; and Fiji, a
country at the forefront of planned relocation globally, with 800 communities
listed as in need of relocation by the Government of Fiji, and numerous cases of
completed, initiated and planned relocation emerging. Primary findings indicate:
there are examples of people choosing to remain in sites of exposure despite
relocation plans, making the notion of “voluntariness” essential; relocation has
the potential to be a successful adaptation option if planned well with strong
participatory governance; a need to think broadly and holistically around the needs
and livelihoods of eected communities in relocation planning; and the need
for longitudinal studies to track the implications and impacts (both positive and
negative) of relocation in the long term.
KEYWORDS
planned relocation, managed retreat, adaptation, Foresight Report, Fiji, Australia, climate
change
Frontiers in Climate 01 frontiersin.org
Piggott-McKellar and Vella 10.3389/fclim.2023.1032547
1. Introduction
As climate impacts intensify, various forms of human mobility
will be exercised by populations as both pre-emptive and
reactive adaptation strategies. The Cancún Adaptation Framework
(adopted in December 2010) recognized “climate change induced
displacement, migration and planned relocation” as forms of
mobility central to climate change adaptation (UNFCCC, 2011, p.
5). Since then, a number of developments in policy have occurred,
including the Task Force on Displacement within the Warsaw
International Mechanism on loss and damage, and the Global
Compact for Migration. Consequently, displacement, migration
and planned relocation have all received significant attention over
the ensuing years. For example, the seminal Foresight Report
on Migration and Global Environmental Change, published in
2011, synthesized current literature on global drivers and forces
linked to population mobility (including migration, displacement,
and relocation).
While all are forms of human mobility, they are distinct.
Displacement refers to the sudden and forced movement of
people in response to a hazard event (environmental, social, or
political), can often be temporary, and is largely associated with
sudden onset disaster events. Ajibade et al. (2020) make a clear
distinction between migration and planned relocation, which are
often incorrectly conflated throughout the literature. Climate-
related migration is defined broadly as human mobility toward
a new location driven by a combination of push and/or pull
factors. Planned relocation refers to the movement of people and
infrastructure away from increasing exposure to environmental
and climate risks and hazards, usually over a short geographical
distance (Hino et al., 2017).
As part of this Research Topic—Climate Migration Research
and Policy Connections: Progress Since the Foresight Report—this
paper focusses on the process of planned relocation. Specifically,
the planned relocation of communities which can be defined as the
movement of people, typically in groups or whole communities,
as part of a process led by the state or other organization, to
a predefined location (Bower and Weerasinghe, 2021). Planned
relocation is often referred to as managed retreat, or planned
retreat. While discussed within the Foresight (2011), planned
relocation received less attention as a viable and important mobility
response and was described as an option “fraught with pitfalls,
where there are few positive experiences on which policy lessons
can be built” (p. 676). Since the Foresight report was published in
2011, there has been significant knowledge generated surrounding
climate-related planned relocation. In this article, the authors draw
on their own experiences working in both Australia and Fiji, along
with examples from global case studies of planned relocation, to
provide insights, lessons and recommendations.
The rest of this article will be as follows. First, a literature
review on planned relocation, post the 2011 Foresight review will
be presented. This literature review is aimed at showcasing how
far the literature in this field has grown and highlight key case
study examples. Next, an overview of the two regions that will be
drawn upon, Australia and Fiji, is presented. This will be followed
by recommendations, insights, and lessons that have emerged since
the publication of the Foresight report, drawing on examples from
our collective experiences in Fiji and Australia, and the broader
literature. A conclusion and future research section explores
important opportunities for further research going forward.
2. Literature review: Climate-related
relocation post Foresight Report
(2011)
This section summarizes literature that has been published,
primarily since the publication of the Foresight report in 2011.
This is done, to showcase the growing literature that has emerged
over the last 10 years on planned relocation. A relevant example
of the emergence of research on this topic is from a recent
literature review undertaken by O’Donnell (2022). O’Donnell
(2022) analyzed the last 5 years (2017–2022) of literature
on managed retreat (often used interchangeably with planned
relocation) and identified 135 academic articles over this 5-year
period. This was a notable increase in comparison to the 5-year
earlier period (2012–2017). In a review of the literature undertaken
by Marter-Kenyon (2020), they similarly show an increase in
literature over time, particularly since the formal recognition by
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) that relocation is a form of human migration in
response to climate change.
In terms of geography, cases of planned relocation have
been identified across all continents (excluding Antarctica) and
specifically, in 78 countries (Bower et al., 2022). Depending
on the language used and parameters of the relocation process
explored, the geographical distribution of case studies differs
somewhat. A high concentration of the literature on planned
relocation is centered in Europe, the USA, Asia, and the Pacific
Islands (Bower and Weerasinghe, 2021;Bower et al., 2022;
O’Donnell, 2022). When exploring drivers of relocation, there is
a high concentration associated with relocation in response to
hydrometeorological events such as flooding, storms and tsunamis
(Bower and Weerasinghe, 2021), and in low-lying coastal regions
from slow onset change such as sea level rise and erosion (Bower
et al., 2022). The drivers of relocations can be understood and
explored further through a geographical lens. For example, in the
literature in small island states there most relocation occurs away
from low-lying coastal areas from slow on set changes, while in
comparison, there is a large concentration of research related to
disaster events such as hurricanes in North America (Bower et al.,
2022).
A key concept that has emerged is understanding the causality
of drivers that precipitate relocation, and the degree to which
climate change can be identified as a known contributor (Marter-
Kenyon, 2020). Despite the literature often pointing to a singular
hazard or “event,” the drivers of relocation are more complex.
There can be several experienced hazards or events that precipitate
over time (i.e., multiple experiences of flooding that worsen with
climate impacts) and eventually lead to relocation. Further, not all
factors that influence planned relocation are climate related. For
example, historic land use planning, land management practices,
histories of marginalization, and development can be factors at
play. Arnall (2014,2019) explores this when looking at relocation
in Mozambique in response to flooding, documenting “causes”
Frontiers in Climate 02 frontiersin.org
Piggott-McKellar and Vella 10.3389/fclim.2023.1032547
of flooding to be erratic weather (with a possible climate-related
dimension), yet also draws attention to the impacts from dam
developments which are present for hydroelectricity generation
which have increased susceptibility of downstream populations
to flooding events. In the Carteret islands, Papua New Guinea,
relocation plans are spurred by a range of factors including coastal
erosion, coastal flooding, soil salinity, population pressure, reef-
based activities and tectonic movement, with potentially attribution
to climate change (Campbell, 2010;Edwards, 2013;Burkett, 2015;
Dannenberg et al., 2019). As well as complex drivers, there are
troubling pasts of governments using relocation and resettlement of
communities as a form of surveillance and control (De Wet, 2012;
Marter-Kenyon, 2020), and some fear that climate change might be
used to legitimize more coercive intentions to relocate populations
(Sherman et al., 2016).
Given the environmental and social controversies associated
with relocation, a strong focus on social justice has emerged
in recent literature on planned relocation. A recent special
issue in Science focussed on these justice implications through
exploring questions such as “how should managed retreat address
centuries of colonialism, racism, discrimination, multigenerational
displacement, disinvestment, and other injustices?” and “How can
managed retreat improve well-being?” (see Siders and Ajibade,
2021). Siders and Ajibade (2021) and others (see Meerow et al.,
2019;Wilmsen and Rogers, 2019;Frost and Miller, 2021) identify
several considerations and lenses through which to explore justice
when planning for sea-level rise, including planned relocations,
and include: redistribution justice (accounting for the socially
vulnerable), intergenerational equity and justice (not leaving
future generations with exacerbated climate risks), procedural
justice (processes are fair and include people in decision-making)
distributional justice (benefits and outcomes are evenly distributed)
responsibility (awareness of risks and options), and beneficiary pays
(those who benefit should pay). This focus on justice has further
been explored in relation to the concept of loss and damage, and
whether relocation should itself be viewed as adaptation or a form
of loss and damage. This is given the extensive non-economic losses
that arise from climate related mobilities, including psychological
harm and distress, especially amongst indigenous populations
where high incidence of relocations have occurred (McNamara
et al., 2018;Clissold et al., 2022).
Challenges and considerations in planning and policy have
emerged as central to the research in this field. This includes from
the starting point of decisions to relocate, questions and issues
related to “voluntariness,” coordination across actors involved in
planning for relocation, and land use planning (O’Donnell, 2022).
Farbotko et al. (2020) explore the concept of voluntary immobility,
and that relocation policy and planning must account for these
populations, especially as relocation may indeed increase exposure
and vulnerability rather than reduce it. Examples of voluntary
immobility in the face of increasing exposure are emerging (see
Schewel, 2020;Wiegel et al., 2021;Yee et al., 2022a). Reasons
for people remaining are complex and can span emotional, risk,
economic, and social domains and differ across demographic
factors such as age, and length of time living in place (Seebauer and
Winkler, 2020). In a similar vein, including local communities and
those affected in the decision-making process around relocation
early on in the process, can create a slow exposure, and enhance the
acceptance of relocation for some community members. Outside of
having effective coordination in relocation processes, Siders et al.
(2019) argues for retreat to be effective it must be strategic, in that
it incorporates opportunities for socioeconomic development, and
should be managed in a context specific and innovative way.
Given the complex nature of relocation processes, it usually
requires coordination across various actors involved from the
local communities, local, provincial, or national governments, or
external agencies. The role of various actors differs significantly
across case studies from the literature. Some examples emerge
where the government is driving relocation. For example, in the
Solomon Islands, the Government has been planning the relocation
of an entire island in response to sea-level rise and associated
coastal hazard risk (Albert et al., 2017). In Cuba, the government
has implemented a relocation policy whereby communities living
in coastal protected areas must relocate, which has been met
with strong resistance by the coastal community of Carahatas
(Aragón-Duran et al., 2020). There are cases were relocation has
been initiated by communities at the local scale and that have
since sought government support. For example, the Indigenous
community of Newtok in Alaska voted for relocation, chose a new
relocation site, acquired land title, and begun constructing houses
in response to significant biophysical hazards experienced in the
village. A Planning Group was subsequently established to assist
Newtok in the relocation consisting of numerous state, federal,
and tribal governmental and non-governmental agencies (Bronen
and Chapin, 2013). Cases of communities initiating and executing
relocation independently have also emerged. In response to mass
erosion, a community in Brazil mobilized community resources
to relocate and build new houses in another location (Gini et al.,
2020).
Planned relocation is a complex process and there is not a
one size fits all approach. Relocation differs based on the number
of people involved in the relocation, the distance over which
they move, the driver or event that precipitates relocation, who
has initiated and coordinated the relocation process, and the
degree of willingness to relocate (Bower and Weerasinghe, 2021;
Piggott-McKellar et al., 2021). Accounting for this heterogeneity,
planned relocations are viewed as an option of last resort and
only to be considered when other in situ adaptation options have
been exhausted (Lawrence et al., 2020). However, relocation is an
option that will remain in the toolbox of adaptation planning,
especially as increasingly thresholds for in situ adaptation are met.
This is exemplified in the most recent IPCC reporting where
planned relocation has become a dominant adaptation measure
discussed and addressed (Pörtner et al., 2022). For example,
in a Special Report on Responding to Sea Level Rise, planned
relocations are presented as the only feasible option, alongside
avoidance, to remove coastal risks in coming decades, yet not
without broader social, political, cultural and economic risks
(IPCC, 2022).
3. Case study examples
The two regions presented here are Australia and Fiji.
These two countries offer very different contexts, insights, and
comparisons for planned relocation practice and policy. Australia
Frontiers in Climate 03 frontiersin.org
Piggott-McKellar and Vella 10.3389/fclim.2023.1032547
is a country that has experienced severe fires and flooding events
over the last few years, which have raised important questions
around the role planned relocation may play in future national
adaptation discussions and planning, with buy-back schemes
recently announced in Northern New South Whales (NSW) and
Southeast Queensland (QLD). This in contrast to Fiji, a country at
the forefront of planned climate-related relocation globally, with
roughly 800 communities assessed as highly vulnerable and in
need of relocation (GIZ, 2019), and numerous cases of completed,
initiated, and planned relocation undertaken and emerging. As
such, these two countries provide an interesting basis for exploring
planned relocation.
3.1. Australia
While regions in the global south and small island states, such
as our Pacific Neighbors, are often considered those most exposed
to climate change (Barnett and Campbell, 2010;Althor et al.,
2016), all regions of the world will be affected. While Australia has
historically experienced severe hazard events including droughts,
cyclones, floods, and bushfires, according to the State of the
Climate report produced by the Bureau of Meteorology and The
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
(CSIRO), climate change impacts are already being experienced in
Australia and are exacerbating these already experienced disaster
events. Some examples of climate attribution in Australia include:
the climate in Australia has warmed 1.4 degrees Celsius since 1910,
with seven of the nine hottest years on record occurring between
2013 and 2019; rainfall has become more variable, with some
regions experiencing more frequent rainfall, while other regions are
experiencing lower than average rainfall; short duration extreme
rainfall events have increased by 10 percent or more in some
regions across Australia, posing a risk for flash flooding; the length
and intensity of fire seasons has increased since 1950; sea-levels are
rising; and, a downward trend in snowmelt in alpine regions has
been experienced over recent decades (The Bureau of Meteorology
CSIRO, 2020).
Major flooding events across 2021–2022 plagued the east coast
of Australia (State of New South Whales, 2022). This flooding has
reinvigorated attention around the need for more dedicated local
land use planning and preparedness, including through the option
of relocation and retreat schemes to move affected communities
to safer locations. In both Northern NSW and Southeast QLD,
respective governments have announced buy-back schemes for
affected households. In Northern NSW, an $800 million Fund has
been developed to assist severely affected households, including
through retreat, and in Southeast QLD a Resilient Homes Fund
has been announced with $741 million toward households level
adaptation, including buy-backs.
The only clear and executed example of relocation in Australia
in the modern era,1is of the town of Grantham. The second author
1 There are examples of historic community relocation prior to Grantham.
One example is Gundagai in New South Whales which was relocated in
1,852 after the deadliest flood event in Australia’s history after the town was
developed and settled on a flood plain (see State of New South Whales, 2022).
undertook research in Grantham in 2013 (see Sipe and Vella, 2014).
Grantham is situated ∼100 km outside of Brisbane, in Queensland.
Grantham had experienced severe flooding events over the years
leading up to 2011. In January 2011 a flash flood tore through the
town, demolishing properties and killed 12 of the 370 residents.
As a result of this flood, the town of Grantham mobilized and
implemented a relocation plan. This process was exceptionally
quick and within 11 months, the first home in the new location
as occupied. Although some residents did not relocate and some
expressed concern about the process, Grantham is widely seen a
success story. The success of this community relocation case study
was down to a range of factors which were built into the planning
and management of the relocation and include: strong leadership
of the Lockyer Valley Regional Council, strong and adaptative
coordination efforts across local, state and federal government, the
ability to acquire land that was adjacent to the original site and was
suitable, the inclusion of community members in decision-making
and considerations.
3.2. Fiji
While sea level rise is impacting livelihoods and people globally,
rates of sea level rise are not globally uniform with significant
variations regionally (Meyssignac et al., 2017a,b). For example, the
documented rate of sea level rise in the Western Pacific Ocean
is four times that of the global average (Nurse et al., 2014) while
in the ocean near and around Fiji, sea levels have been rising
about 5.5 mm per year since 1992 which is roughly twice the global
average (Martin et al., 2018).
Over the last 10 years there are emerging case studies in Fiji of
villages planning for relocation. Currently there are ∼800 villages
listed as in need of relocation (GIZ, 2019). In addition to having a
high number of villages earmarked for relocation, Fiji was the first
country to develop planned relocation guidelines (see Government
of Fiji, 2018). The information and data drawn on in this article
derives from ethnographic fieldwork undertaken in Fiji over several
years and numerous site visits across different communities. The
first author has visited sites in 2017, 2019, and 2020 and has
published articles related to planned relocation and mobility in Fiji
(see Piggott-McKellar et al., 2019,2021;McMichael et al., 2021;
Piggott-McKellar and McMichael, 2021). Here we will explore some
of these examples across the spectrum of relocation responses and
draw on relevant case studies where relevant. An overview of some
of these are presented below to give context.
Vunidologoa is often viewed as one of the earliest examples
of planned climate-related relocation within Fiji. In 2014, the
village was relocated from the coastline to roughly 2 km inland
owing to increased flooding events, coastal erosion, and saltwater
intrusion. This relocation was initiated by the community, who
approached the Government of Fiji for support. The Government
of Fiji coordinated the relocation process, and the community also
provided some significant in-kind contributions. After years of
consultations and planning, eventually 30 new houses were built on
land already owned by the village. The community were provided
with livelihood additions in their relocation including pineapple
plantations, cattle and fishponds.
Frontiers in Climate 04 frontiersin.org
Piggott-McKellar and Vella 10.3389/fclim.2023.1032547
Multiple examples of partial community relocation exist in
Fiji, where only a portion of the community relocated, including
Denimanu, Vunisavisavi and Narikoso (see Piggott-McKellar and
McMichael, 2021 for further information). One example of this
occurred in Denimanu village, on Yadua Island. After a cyclone
in 2013 two rows of houses at the front of the village closest
to the shoreline were destroyed. As such, these houses were
relocated on a hill slope. This new location is still within walking
distance from the original site, however, there have been some
concerns amongst community members about possible impacts
associated with landslides, given the primary school had recently
been destroyed by a landslide event. In addition to these examples
of partial village relocation there have also been emerging examples
of communities, or portions of communities opting to remain
despite either the opportunity for relocation as proposed by the
government or external organization (Karoko village), or when the
village has initiated their own relocation plans (Vidawa). In these
cases, people have chosen to remain owing to deep attachment to
place, and perceived risks and obstacles in relocating.
4. Insights and recommendations
Six recommendations were provided in the Foresight report
pertaining to planned relocation. These policy recommendations
were: (1) Given the challenges involved, a carefully planned
movement is clearly superior to hastily organized, under-resourced,
internal relocation; (2) The need to plan carefully also implies that
funding has to be secured well in advance, and not, for example,
raised when natural disasters precipitate the need for urgent
relocation; (3) Large-scale movement of agricultural populations
to another agricultural area is at best high risk and unlikely to be
conducive to permanent transformation of living conditions; (4)
As all examples have highlighted, the key question of economic
livelihoods in destination areas is not easily resolved; (5) Organized
relocation tends to be very expensive; (6) Finally, all current
programmes should be voluntary in that participation can in
principle be refused (Foresight, 2011).
While all of these recommendations listed in the Foresight
Report have relevance and still retain useful lessons to draw on,
there are lessons from more recent research that need to be
woven into future recommendations for planned relocation. Here
we present insights into these, through primarily drawing on
experiences from the authors research from Australia and Fiji, as
well as the broader literature. It is important to note that these
recommendations are by no means exhaustive. Rather, the aim
here is to present insights into how our knowledge of relocation
has expanded over the last 10 years, and present new insights to
consider in future research and policy.
(i) Participation in relocation should be voluntary, and
support where possible populations who choose to remain
Ensuring participation in relocation programmes is voluntary
was listed as a recommendation in the Foresight report. This
recommendation remains relevant today. Within Fiji’s Relocation
Guidelines, it is stated that relocation is, by definition, a
voluntary process (Government of Fiji, 2018, p. 6). The
importance of relocation plans and policies being voluntary
is especially relevant given the checkered history and past of
some nations where resettlement and relocation policies and
plans have been implemented coercively (Marter-Kenyon, 2020).
And further, the most recent IPCC recognizes that significant
impacts associated with involuntary displacements and migrations
(including relocation) (IPCC, 2022).
While voluntariness is essential, it is not straightforward. It is
influenced by a range of factors evidenced through our experiences
in both Fiji and Australia. Within Fiji, there were examples across
villages of predominantly older generations who sought to remain
in place, despite relocation plans, while younger generations opted
to relocate to safe locations. This process of younger generations
retreating and rebuilding their livelihoods in regions further away
from climate risks, while older generations remained despite
exposure to climate risks, occurred in multiple villages. In Fiji,
there were also examples of entire villages choosing to remain
in place. One such example of this is published in this special
issue (see Yee et al., 2022a,b). Yee et al. examines how a strong
concept of Vanua (a Fijian term which exemplifies broadly strong
attachment and connection to place and people) has resulted in a
community resisting relocation despite significant climate risks and
being presented with an option to relocate.
In Grantham, Australia, several households chose to remain in
the old site despite the relocation program going ahead. This was
owing to some dispute over the causes of the flooding and differing
perspectives of the likelihood of flooding of such a high magnitude
occurring again. Research in an Australian context to date is yet
to focus specifically on detailed decision-making behavior related
to climate-related relocation options, however does note existing
variables that interplay with immobility decision-making. Graham
et al. (2018) use a values-based assessment to show that for some
people, place attachment is a key factor in people’s consideration
against relocation using a case study from the Gippsland East coast
in Victoria, Australia. Furthermore, the recent release of the Flood
Inquiry into the floods in Northern NSW presents mixed results
on public intentions to participate in a voluntary buy back scheme
with some comments indicating a strong interest in participation,
while others cited financial difficulties and an inability to afford to
live elsewhere, as well as deep routed connections to community
and place (State of New South Whales, 2022).
These experiences from Fiji and Australia indicate that despite
diverse socio-cultural, economic, and political contexts, people will,
and are, choosing to stay in places of objective high risk, largely
given strong connections to place. This is further reinforced from
the global literature where factors including age, gender, length
of time living in a location, underlying values, previous hazard
experiences, and social connections have been shown to influence
mobility preferences (Adams, 2016;Graham et al., 2018;Seebauer
and Winkler, 2020;McMichael et al., 2021;Farbotko, 2022). While
it is agreed that relocation should be a voluntary process, how
governments and other relevant stakeholders deal with populations
who choose to stay in places of high exposure, and what this
means for investment in in-situ adaptations such as protection and
accommodation, are areas requiring increased attention.
(ii) Strong governance and coordination across actors, at all
levels, particularly affected populations
Drawing on examples across Australia and Fiji, the
importance of strong participatory governance emerged as a
key recommendation. Looking at the governance of relocation
Frontiers in Climate 05 frontiersin.org
Piggott-McKellar and Vella 10.3389/fclim.2023.1032547
process in Grantham, this has been documented and largely
viewed as an effective process. Several factors, including having
one leading body acting as the face of the relocation process to
the community, and a strong and definitive end goal, contributed
to this. While there was some contention between layers of
government throughout the relocation process, this was not seen to
impede the process. This strong coordinated governance allowed
the expedition of planning approvals and processes which would
otherwise have dragged the processes out by years, instead of the
11 months it took for the first house to be relocated. Effective
communication with the community was established early in the
relocation process and ensured the building of trust amongst the
governing relocation body and the community. This paved the way
for effective communication and coordination throughout the life
of the relocation planning process. In addition, regular meetings
with community members were undertaken to allow affected
peoples to express their concerns and have input into the process
as it progressed. This effective communication is one of the reasons
the Grantham relocation is largely viewed as a success.
On the contrary, in most of the relocation case studies from
Fiji, people felt largely that they did not have a voice and were not
included in decisions that were being made regarding relocation.
This caused frustration and a lack of trust between communities
and Government. For example, in Narikoso village in Fiji, original
plans were for the entire village to relocate, however only seven
households were eventually relocated, which the village members
expressed they had no control over: “It’s good to have one big village.
If it is seven houses it is not so good. First time they [Government
of Fiji] came here they bring the money with them and they told us
that all the houses will move over there. And after Winston they came
again and told us that it is only seven houses because the money is less.
And we just say, ‘not so good” (Piggott-McKellar and McMichael,
2021, p. 110).
However, it is important to state that strong and effective
participatory governance does not necessitate the management
and authority of an external actor in making decisions related
to relocation process. Rather, it can mean that relocation is a
process that can be undertaken at the local level and governed by
internal processes and structures. For example, in Vidawa village
in Fiji the community governance structure was used, without any
overarching government body, to make decisions in the village
around relocation, where houses will be built, and to mobilize the
community. This process had resulted in the village deciding that
no new houses would be built in the current village and began
the clearing of land, and building of new houses, on the hill away
from the coast, drawing on government resources where they were
available. Other examples of internally driven relocation globally
emphasize the findings from Fiji (see Gini et al., 2020). While
this is by no means stating that government assistance should
not be provided, nor prioritized, it does raise important questions
around the need to support communities with access to appropriate
resources, who have the leadership and governance to manage
relocation, and adaptation (McNamara et al., 2018).
(iii) Accounting and planning for socially vulnerable and
marginalized groups
The impacts of climate change are most severely
experienced across people who are most vulnerable
(Bohle et al., 1994;Otto et al., 2017). This also is true of
adaptation itself, including planned relocation. People who
are socially marginalized are those most likely to experience
adverse outcomes and even maladaptation because of relocation
processes, particularly if these underlying issues are not addressed
from the outset. This includes people who do not have a voice
in decision-making given cultural and social norms, elderly
populations, landless peoples, and those with a disability.
Across examples from Fiji, impacts on socially marginalized
groups were evident. In a number of cases, women were largely
left out of consultation processes related to relocation given the
patriarchal and hierarchical social structures. As such women felt
that important aspects of relocation were not considered for them
in planning processes. This was evident during fieldwork where
discussions with women’s groups led to issues being raised related
to kitchens not being built in the new houses, and that a women’s
shop was not built in one village. These added impacts were not
isolated to women but also older generations. In Vunidogoloa as
the village relocated 2 km inland, older populations are unable to
walk the distance back to the old village. As such they have lost a
direct form of livelihood in fishing, and connection to the coastline,
which is an important part of their everyday livelihood and place-
based connection. This loss was specific to older village members as
able bodied younger generations are able to retain that connection
through walking down to the old village site. In Australia, in
Grantham, the strong levels of community engagement, including
case workers who worked directly with affected residents, were
present throughout the consultation and planning process. This
was done with the expressed aim to target individual needs in
decision making processes as a way to reduce any adverse outcomes
on vulnerable and marginalized groups.
These insights from Fiji and Australia indicate that planning
processes can go some way to reduce negative outcomes for
marginalized groups. Yet, there is a need for detailed empirical
research examining community perspectives and experiences to
better understand how planning processes can be more inclusive.
(iv) The identification of relocation sites should be, where
appropriate, as close to the original site as possible, or provide an
opportunity for people to maintain connection to the original site
Relocating your home and livelihood in response to climate
exposure is a significant undertaking and can take a large toll
on your life and livelihood. Place based connections, place
attachments, social disarticulation, and other anticipated non-
economic losses are factors cited as reasons people are reluctant to
move (Seebauer and Winkler, 2020;Yee et al., 2022a). Relocation
that occurs over a short geographical distance can help to minimize
these. However, while desirable, this is contingent on a range of
factors such as having suitable and appropriate land and land tenure
arrangements in a location nearby.
All relocation cases from Fiji and Australia examined by the
authors have been undertaken over a short distance (within 2 km).
In Vunidologoa in Fiji, the relocation occurred over a 2 km
distance from the original site (the longest of all examples). While
this has been a disruption to people’s sense of culture and place-
based connections, especially the older generations who are unable
to retain close physical ties to the old site (as discussed above), it has
allowed many members of the community to maintain connections
Frontiers in Climate 06 frontiersin.org
Piggott-McKellar and Vella 10.3389/fclim.2023.1032547
to the coast and associated activities including fishing. Further,
given the land remains on the village’s clan land, this has largely
ensured a sense of continuity and connectivity. Within Fiji this
was the case in all relocations–villages were able to relocate over
a short distance while remaining on clan land or negotiating with
neighboring clans. While preferrable, identification of land that is
close to the original site is undoubtedly challenging, not least in
considering the need for this land to be of reduced climate risk
to make relocation viable. Across the Pacific, land tenure is one
of the most challenging factors under consideration in relocation
planning, as land can be held under varied and sometimes complex
systems, including customary ownership (Campbell, 2010). This
makes relocation, outside of small-scale movements where villages
and communities are able to relocate on their own clan land very
challenging and a significant future challenge. Within an Australian
context, the relocation in Grantham occurred over a small distance.
This was able to occur owing to the availability of adjacent farming
land, outside of flood exposure, which the council was able to
purchase. This allowed the new dwellings in Grantham to be an
extension of the original town. While this challenge was dealt with
in Grantham, the question of appropriate land for relocation is one
that will remain central to relocation planning across Australia.
Looking to the broader literature, a relevant example where a
community had to move a significant distance when relocating is
of Isle de Jean Charles in Louisiana, in the United States. Simms
et al. (2021) explore the important role that place connection played
in the challenging decision to relocate, and how relocation policy
was able to go some way to address and account for this loss. This
was achieved through allowing the community to retain access and
ownership over the properties being left behind where people can
go back and visit, which was critical for the affected community to
agree to the relocation process (Simms et al., 2021).
(v) Livelihoods, beyond solely economic livelihoods, should be
considered and enhanced in the new site
Having strong options for livelihood development that
encompasses multiple dimensions can help reduce the unknown
and perceived risks and hurdles associated with relocation
decision making for affected populations as well as allowing
communities strong development opportunities (Siders et al.,
2019). In the Foresight report, the importance, and challenge, of
rebuilding economic livelihoods is stated in the recommendation
“as all examples have highlighted, the key question of economic
livelihoods in destination areas is not easily resolved” (Foresight,
2011, p. 179). While economic livelihoods are paramount, it is
also relevant to consider the development and support of wider
livelihoods in destination locations, outside of purely economic
livelihoods. For example, while economic livelihoods are vital,
significant adverse impacts can be experienced in the social,
cultural, human, natural, physical aspects of affected people’s lives
and livelihoods.
Across Fiji, there were examples of where people experienced
both improved and adverse outcomes on livelihoods post
relocation. In the partial planned relocation of Denimanu in
Fiji, houses were built and facilities and services such as toilets,
water tanks, and electricity were provided which were greatly
improved from the previous houses, where these services and
facilities were limited. Yet, given only half of the village relocated,
challenges associated with social disarticulation were experienced
given the division of the village into two. In Vunidologoa,
the government went someway to consider broader livelihoods
through the planned relocation including alternative livelihood
options which were included in the new site (fishponds, pineapple
plantations). Additionally, the location of the new village has
improved access to transport, and thus schools, health services, and
markets. Community members expressed that this improved access
to services has significantly improved their daily lives in the few
years after the relocation. However, unanticipated negative impacts
on livelihoods were later experienced by residents. These included
increased access to and consumption of packaged food and alcohol
which have impacted health, disruptions to traditional values, and
reduced mental wellbeing and loss of place attachment given the
village has relocated away from the coastline (for further detail see
McMichael and Powell, 2021). In Grantham, Australia, there have
been no follow up studies examining how relocation has impacted
broader livelihoods, making this a critical gap in the literature.
5. Conclusion and future directions
In the seminal Foresight report published in 2011, planned
relocation was viewed as a fraught adaptation strategy with limited
evidence to its effectiveness and use as an adaptation option
(Foresight, 2011). As this research has shown there has been
significant growth of research over the last 10 years in relation
to planned relocation with this likely to increase further in future
years. With this growing body of research have come learnings,
lessons, and recommendations which have been summarized and
explored through the lens of the authors experiences undertaking
research and fieldwork with relocated communities across Australia
and Fiji. Importantly, moving into an era where relocation will
increasingly be viewed as an option in the adaptation toolbox (albeit
an option of last resort), relocation should be seen as having the
potential to enhance the livelihoods of all effected people, if planned
well with a strong participatory governance model; yet must not be
seen as an option that is appropriate and suited to all people, in all
places, on the basis of objective high climate risk, but must rather
account for individual perspectives and knowledge.
This research shows a shift in research and focus beyond
financial considerations of relocation, which were the primary
focus of the Foresight report recommendations. While funding
and budgets for relocation are essential considerations, especially
when looking to the scale that some relocations will incur, and
subsequent costs, research and experience has shown that there
are broader considerations. For example, impacts associated on
people’s livelihoods from relocation that need to be accounted
for and considered go beyond the financial; social bonds, cultural
continuity and connections, and impacts on health and wellbeing
are challenging to retain and require thought and planning. This
requires strategic and well managed relocation planning that can
not only reduce exposure to physical hazards, but use the relocation
process as an opportunity to rebuild lives and livelihoods (Siders
et al., 2019).
Looking to locations of Fiji and Australia, we see very different
contexts for relocation, yet broad lessons have still emerged
across the two regions. While there are limited case studies in
Australia of planned and executed relocation. Grantham presents
Frontiers in Climate 07 frontiersin.org
Piggott-McKellar and Vella 10.3389/fclim.2023.1032547
an important example of what has been seen as an overall,
successful relocation. Looking to the future, planned relocation is
likely to play an important role in future land use planning in
Australia especially considering the projection and high likelihood
of growing climate hazards (The Bureau of Meteorology CSIRO,
2020). This is evidenced from the recent flood events that greatly
damaged regions across New South Whales and Queensland and
the subsequent buy-back schemes announced in Northern NSW
and Southeast Queensland. In Fiji, relocation is emerging as central
to adaptation plans and policies with several communities who have
already initiated, undertaken and complete relocation, and another
800 communities listed as in need of future possible relocation
(GIZ, 2019).
While there has been a growing literature base on planned
relocation, most case study examples are still recent, or have limited
follow up research and analysis into the long-term implications
on lives and livelihoods. The examples drawn on in this research
were all visited and studied within a 4-year period of the relocation
occurring. Longitudinal studies of relocated communities will
help to give insights beyond the relocation process itself, but
also into the longer-term implications of relocation to learn best
practices and share lessons. Learnings that do emerge should
be made available and shared, both the positive and negative
outcomes, and the gray in between; as Westoby et al. (2020,
p. 388) argue that within climate adaptation “successes are
celebrated, but failures are habitually obscured, leaving a major
knowledge base untapped.” Given the significant impacts planned
relocations can have on peoples lives and livelihoods, and the
likelihood it will be increasingly used as an adaptation strategy, this
becomes paramount.
Data availability statement
The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following
licenses/restrictions: Several datasets exist from multiple
fieldtrips. Requests to access these datasets should be directed
at: a.piggottmckellar@qut.edu.au.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed
and approved by University of Melbourne (approval number
1851729.1) and University of Queensland (approval number
20170302). The patients/participants provided their written
informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
Conceptualization and writing—original draft preparation:
AP-M. Methodology and writing—review and editing: AP-M and
KV. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded in part through an Australian
Research Council Linkage grant (number LP160100941) and an
Australian Research Council Discovery grant (DP190100604).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Assoc. Prof Karen McNamara
(University of Queensland), Assoc. Prof Celia McMichael
(University of Melbourne), Prof Patrick Nunn (University of
Sunshine Coast), and Honorary Prof Neil Sipe (University of
Queensland) who each collaborated on previous and related
research which served as important foundation of the work in
this paper.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adams, H. (2016). Why populations persist: mobility, place attachment and climate
change. Popul. Environ. 37, 429–448. doi: 10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3
Ajibade, I., Sullivan, M., and Haeffner, M. (2020). Why climate migration
is not managed retreat: six justifications. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102187.
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102187
Albert, S., Bronen, R., Tooler, N., Leon, J., Yee, D., Ash, J., Boseto, D., and Grinham,
A. (2017). Heading for the hills: climate-driven community relocations in the Solomon
Islands and Alaska provide insight for a 1.5 ◦C future. Reg. Environ. Change 18,
2261–2272. doi: 10.1007/s10113-017-1256-8
Althor, G., Watson, J. E. M., and Fuller, R. A. (2016). Global mismatch between
greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change. Sci. Rep. 6, 20281.
doi: 10.1038/srep20281
Aragón-Duran, E., Lizarralde, G., González-Camacho, G., Olivera-Ranero, A.,
Bornstein, L., Herazo, B., and Labbé, D. (2020). The language of risk and the risk of
language: mismatches in risk response in Cuban coastal villages. Int. J. Disaster Risk
Reduct. 50, 101712. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101712
Arnall, A. (2014). A climate of control: flooding, displacement
and planned resettlement in the lower Zambezi River valley,
Frontiers in Climate 08 frontiersin.org
Piggott-McKellar and Vella 10.3389/fclim.2023.1032547
Mozambique. Geogr. J. 180, 141–150. doi: 10.1111/geoj.
12036
Arnall, A. (2019). Resettlement as climate change adaptation: what can be
learned from state-led relocation in rural Africa and Asia? Clim. Dev. 11, 253–263.
doi: 10.1080/17565529.2018.1442799
Barnett, J., and Campbell, J. (2010). Climate Change and Small Island States: Power,
Knowledge, and the South Pacific. London: Earthscan, Sterling.
Bohle, H. G., Downing, T. E., and Watts, M. J. (1994). Climate change and social
vulnerability: toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Glob. Environ.
Change 4, 37–48. doi: 10.1016/0959-3780(94)90020-5
Bower, E., and Weerasinghe, S. (2021). Leaving Place, Restoring Home: Enhancing
the Evidence Base on Planned Relocation Cases in the Context of Hazards,Disasters,
and Climate Change. Platform on Disaster Displacement (PDD) and Andrew & Renata
Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. Sydney: UNSW.
Bower, E., Weerasinghe, S., and Mokhnacheva, D. (2022). Mapping of planned
relocation cases: a foundation for evidence-based policy and practice. Forced Migr. Rev.
69, 48–51.
Bronen, R., and Chapin, F. S. (2013). Adaptive governance and institutional
strategies for climate-induced community relocations in Alaska. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA. 110, 9320–9325 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1210508110
Burkett, M. (2015). Lessons from contemporary resettlement in the South Pacific. J.
Int. Aff. 2, 75. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3304939
Campbell, J. (2010). “Climate-induced community relocation in the Pacific:
the meaning and importance of land,” in: Climate Change and Displacement:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed J. McAdam (London: Hart Publishing), 58–59.
Clissold, R., McNamara, K. E., and Westoby, R. (2022). Emotions of the
Anthropocene across Oceania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 6757.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph19116757
Dannenberg, A. L., Frumkin, H., Hess, J. J., and Ebi, K. L. (2019). Managed
retreat as a strategy for climate change adaptation in small communities: public health
implications. Clim. Change 153, 1. doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02382-0
De Wet, C. (2012). The application of international resettlement
policy in African villagization projects. Hum. Organ. 71, 395–406.
doi: 10.17730/humo.71.4.0787k13246877275
Edwards, J. B. (2013). The logistics of climate-induced resettlement: lessons from
the Carteret Islands, Papua New Guinea. Refug. Surv. Q. 3, 52. doi: 10.1093/rsq/hdt011
Farbotko, C. (2022). Anti-displacement mobilities and re-emplacements:
alternative climate mobilities in Funafala. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 48, 3380–3396.
doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2022.2066259
Farbotko, C., Dun, O., Thornton, F., McNamara, K. E., and McMichael, C.
(2020). Relocation planning must address voluntary immobility. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10,
702–704. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0829-6
Foresight (2011). Migration and Global Environmental Change: FinalProject Report.
London: The Government Office for Science.
Frost, L., and Miller, F. (2021). Planning for social justice, anticipating sea
level rise: the case of Lake Macquarie, Australia. Aust. Geogr. 52, 171–190.
doi: 10.1080/00049182.2021.1917327
Gini, G., Mendonga Cardoso, T., and Pires Ramos, E. (2020). When the two seas
met: preventive and self-managed relocation of the Nova Enseada community in Brazil.
Forced Migr. Rev. 64, 35–38.
GIZ (2019). Overview of Fiji’s Response to International Frameworks on Human
Mobility in the Context of Climate Change. Bonn: GIZ.
Government of Fiji (2018). Planned Relocation Guidelines: A Framework to
Undertake Climate Change Related Relocation. Suva: Fiji Government.
Graham, S., Barnett, J., Mortreux, C., Hurlimann, A., and Fincher, R.
(2018). Local values and fairness in climate change adaptation: Insights
from marginal rural Australian communities. World Dev. 108, 332–343
doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.008
Hino, M., Field, C. B., and Mach, K. J. (2017). Managed retreat as a response to
natural hazard risk. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 364–370. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3252
IPCC (2022). Fact Sheet – Responding to Sea Level Rise. Available online at: https://
www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/outreach/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FactSheet_SLR.
pdf (accessed December 5, 2022).
Lawrence, J., Boston, J., Bell, R., Olufson, S., Kool, R., Hardcastlem, M., and
Stroombergen, A. (2020). Implementing pre-emptive managed retreat: constraints and
novel insights. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 6, 66. doi: 10.1007/s40641-020-00161-z
Marter-Kenyon, J. (2020). Origins and functions of climate-related relocation: an
analytical review. Anthropocene Rev. 7, 159–188. doi: 10.1177/2053019620915633
Martin, P. C. M., Nunn, P., Leon, J., and Tindale, N. (2018). Responding to multiple
climate-linked stressors in a remote island context: the example of Yadua Island, Fiji.
Clim.Risk Manag. 21, 7–15. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2018.04.003
McMichael, C., Farbotko, C., Piggott-McKellar, A., Powell, T., and Kitara, M. (2021).
Rising seas, immobilities, and translocality in small island states: case studies from Fiji
and Tuvalu. Popul. Environ. 43, 82–107. doi: 10.1007/s11111-021-00378-6
McMichael, C., and Powell, T. (2021). Planned relocation and health: a case study
from Fiji. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 4355. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18084355
McNamara, K. E., Bronen, R., Fernando, N., and Klepp, S. (2018). The complex
decision-making of climate-induced relocation: adaptation and loss and damage. Clim.
Policy 18, 111–117. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1248886
Meerow, S., Pajouhesh, P., and Miller, T. R. (2019). Social equity in urban resilience
planning. Int. J. Justice Sustain. 24, 793–808 doi: 10.1080/13549839.2019.1645103
Meyssignac, B., Fettweis, X., Chevrier, R., and Spada, G. (2017a). Regional
sea level changes for the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries induced by the
regional variability in greenland ice sheet surface mass loss. J. Clim. 30, 2011–2028.
doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0337.1
Meyssignac, B., Piecuch, C. G., Merchant, C. J., Racault, M.-F., Palanisamy, H.,
MacIntosh, C., et al. (2017b). Causes of the regional variability in observed sea level,
sea surface temperature and ocean colour over the period 1993-2011. Surv. Geophys.
38, 187–215. doi: 10.1007/s10712-016-9383-1
Nurse, L.A., McLean, R. F., Agard, J., Briguglio, L. P., Duvat-Magnan, V., Pelesikoti,
N. et al. (2014). “Small islands,” in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds V. R. Barros,
C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, T. E. Bilir, et al. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), 1613–1654.
O’Donnell, T. (2022). Managed retreat and planned retreat: a systematic
literature review. Philos. Trans. Ro. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 377, 20210129.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0129
Otto, I., Reckien, D., Reyer, C., Marcus, R., Le Masson, V., Jones, L., et al. (2017).
Social vulnerability to climate change: a review of concepts and evidence. Reg. Environ.
Change 17, 1651–1662. doi: 10.1007/s10113-017-1105-9
Piggott-McKellar, A., McMichael, C., and Powell, T. (2021). Generational retreat:
locally driven adaption to coastal hazard risk in two Indigenous communities in Fiji.
Reg. Environ. Change 21, s10113-021-01780-4 doi: 10.1007/s10113-021-01780-4
Piggott-McKellar, A. E., and McMichael, C. (2021). The immobility-relocation
continuum: diverse responses to coastal change in a small island state. Environ. Sci.
Policy 125, 105–115. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.019
Piggott-McKellar, A. E., McNamara, K. E., Nunn, P. D., and Sekinini, S. T. (2019).
Moving people in a changing climate: lessons from two case studies in Fiji. Soc. Sci. 8,
133. doi: 10.3390/socsci8050133
Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., Adams, H., Adelekan, I., Adler, C., Adrian, R.,
et al. (2022): “Technical summary,” in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability.Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M.
Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), 37–118.
Schewel, K. (2020). Understanding immobility: moving beyond the mobility bias in
migration studies. Int. Migr. Rev. 54, 328–355. doi: 10.1177/0197918319831952
Seebauer, S., and Winkler, C. (2020). Should I stay or should I go? Factors in
household decisions for or against relocation from a flood risk area. Glob. Environ.
Change 60, 102018. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102018
Sherman, M., Berrang-Ford, L., Lwasa, S., Ford, J., Namanya, D. B., Llanos-Cuentas,
A., et al. (2016). Drawing the line between adaptation and development: a systematic
literature review of planned adaptation in developing countries. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.
Clim. Change 7, 707–726. doi: 10.1002/wcc.416
Siders, A. R., and Ajibade, I. (2021). Introduction: Managed
retreat and environmental justice in a changing climate. J.
Environ. Stud. Sci. 11, 287–293. doi: 10.1007/s13412-021-0
0700-6
Siders, A. R., Hino, M., and Mach, K. J. (2019). The case for strategic and managed
climate retreat. Science 365, 761–763. doi: 10.1126/science.aax8346
Simms, J. R. Z., Waller, H. L., Brunet, C., and Jenkins, P. (2021). The
long goodbye on a disappearing, ancestral island: a just retreat from Isle
de Jean Charles. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 11, 316–328. doi: 10.1007/s13412-021-0
0682-5
Sipe, N., and Vella, K. (2014). Relocating a flood-affected community:
good planning or good politics? J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 80, 400–412.
doi: 10.1080/01944363.2014.976586
State of New South Whales (2022). 2022 Flood Inquiry. Volume two: Full
Report. Available online at: https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/noindex/2022-
08/VOLUME_TWO_Full%20report.pdf (accessed August 27, 2022).
The Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO (2020). State of the Climate 2020.
Available online at https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-
change/State-of- the-Climate (accessed June 17, 2021).
Frontiers in Climate 09 frontiersin.org
Piggott-McKellar and Vella 10.3389/fclim.2023.1032547
UNFCCC (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held
in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Available online at: http://unfccc.
int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pd (accessed March 3, 2018).
Westoby, R., Rahman, M. F., McNamara, K. E., Huq, S., Clissold, R., and Khan,
M. R. (2020). Sharing adaptation failure to improve adaptation outcomes. One Earth
(Cambridge, Mass.). 3, 388–391. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.09.002
Wiegel, H., Warner, J., Boas, I., and Lamers, M. (2021).
Safe from what? Understanding environmental non-migration
in Chilean Patagonia through ontological security and risk
perceptions. Reg. Environ. Change, 21. doi: 10.1007/s10113-021-0
1765-3
Wilmsen, B., and Rogers, S. (2019). Planned resettlement
to avoid climatic hazards: what prospects for just outcomes
in China? Asia Pac. Viewp. 60:118–131. doi: 10.1111/apv.
12232
Yee, M., McNamara, K. E., Piggott-McKellar, A., and McMichael, C. (2022b). The
role of Vanua in climate-related voluntary immobility in Fiji. Front. Clim. 4, 1034765.
doi: 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
Yee, M., Piggott-McKellar, A. E., McMichael, C., and McNamara,
K. E. (2022a). Climate change, voluntary immobility, and place-
belongingness: insights from Togoru, Fiji. Climate 10, 46. doi: 10.3390/cli100
30046
Frontiers in Climate 10 frontiersin.org
