When communities face climate impacts like rising sea levels, severe storms or eroding coastlines, the decision to stay or leave becomes deeply personal and complex. We sat down with our planned relocation expert David Durand-Delacre to talk about the realities of such decisions and how a newly developed Planned Relocation Simulation aims to help decision makers better understand what communities are facing.
When you think about human mobility today, what stands out most to you?
Human mobility has always been part of how we make our lives. People have always travelled for work, trade, family, education and tourism. What has changed is the context of global environmental change. With climate targets being overshot and severe weather events increasing, people are more often confronted with the question of whether they can continue to live where they are.
Even though mobility is normal, people are usually very attached to where they live. Mobility outcomes become negative when people are pushed down harmful paths they do not choose. Our efforts should be about making sure people have a choice of whether to move or not, and that the paths available to them are safe.
You helped develop a simulation on climate-driven relocation. What do you hope participants understand after playing?
The simulation was developed with the Center for System Solutions, and I was the main researcher involved in the design. Our audience is people who will take part in planning or decision-making around relocation, and we hope they walk away understanding that relocating a community is not just about moving houses or building roads. Historically, relocation processes focused mainly on hard infrastructure, which had negative outcomes, because socioeconomic and sociocultural aspects matter just as much. What will people do in the new place? How can the community stay strong? Will people still have neighbours they know and places to gather?
For some groups, like Indigenous communities, the land itself is deeply meaningful. You cannot just pick up and move that relationship. The simulation tries to capture that complexity, so participants experience just how many interconnected pieces need to be considered.
One of the central questions you raise is “Who gets to decide?” What barriers exist for communities to have a meaningful say?
Relocation is incredibly complex on the government side. Many ministries and planning bodies need to be involved, which can be overwhelming, especially because climate-related relocation is relatively new. This often leaves limited space for community voices, unless meaningful participation is organized early and deliberately.
Another challenge is that communities are diverse. People do not all agree, and there are questions about who can legitimately speak for everyone. In the simulation we reflect this through different stakeholder's priorities: a mayor’s office, a council of elders, fisherfolk who want to stay to protect their livelihood and a group that has been previously displaced. Securing people's consent through participation takes work. Without it, relocation is unlikely to improve their lives.
Your simulation focuses on whole communities rather than individuals. What unique issues arise with collective relocation?
Collective relocation requires timing things so everyone can move together, which is not easy. When some want to leave while others do not, governments face the challenge of where to invest resources. Do you provide services in two locations at once? Do you build a community elsewhere while still maintaining the old one?
Another challenge is avoiding the breakup of the community. Some places have done this well by recreating the same street names or ensuring people live near their former neighbours, maintaining sense of continuity. But in other cases, relocations have stretched out over a decade. Half the community moved, half stayed, leaving people feeling split. It is hard to move forward collectively when that happens.
Land presents another complication, requiring difficult negotiations. Often, land available for relocation is not ideal: it may be less valuable, less productive or further away from essential services. There have been cases where people were relocated to flood-prone areas. Even when people move, climate impacts can still catch up.
Looking ahead, what needs to happen in the next years to improve outcomes for people on the move or at risk of relocation?
One important step is developing national policies that respect rights, prioritize support for community-driven processes and are well-resourced. Currently, communities requesting relocation do not know who to approach and governments are not always ready either. Policies are not silver bullets, but they are a good start.
Another priority is helping planners adopt a more holistic understanding of relocation. You are asking a community to move. If you do not account for livelihoods, social ties and cultural aspects, relocation may lead to more harm than good. The simulation can help address this through hands-on learning for community and policymakers.
