PROTOCOL: The Impact of Relocation Processes on Populations Facing Socio-Territorial Inequities: A Scoping Review

Background

Climate change increases extreme weather events, including intense rainfalls that can cause flooding (IPCC 2023). Historically, actions used to face climate risks have often followed the logic: “protect – accommodate – retreat” (Doberstein et al. 2019). Because relocation is often perceived as a form of maladaptation or as politically and socially unpopular, it tends to be the last option considered and implemented (Yarina and Wescoat 2023). In contrast, constructing protective infrastructure in flood-risk zones remains the primary strategy of decision-makers and property owners.

In the north-eastern region of North America, standard mitigation techniques “protect” include sedimentary recharge, ripraps, wave defectors, and the construction of walls or dikes (Friesinger and Bernatchez 2010; Bachand and Comtois 2016; Aerts 2018). Regenerative recharge represents a natural method of counteracting erosion, which contributes to both submersion and flooding. Dikes, in particular, offer a way to preserve buildings and activities from being constantly at risk of being impacted by high tides and floods. However, in many cases, these solutions do not fully address the problem, as structures can break or divert the problem elsewhere. Moreover, they tend to reinforce a false sense of protection. In light of these limitations, retreating and relocation ought to be carefully considered (Biron et al. 2020; Aerts 2018; Menoni and Pesaro 2008).

Residential relocation is defined as a permanent removal of a building from a high-risk area—affected by floods, in this case—to a low-risk area. While the process is often initiated by a government decision, it can sometimes come from a citizen's request (Pinter and Rees 2021). Relocation is most often sponsored by a local, regional, or national governmental entity to help households that have experienced flooding. Residents can either relocate to the same municipality or move further away, depending on the options available to them. In any case, relocated households often suffer various types of losses: financial, disruption of their lifestyle, and the weakening of social ties, and so forth (Raikes et al. 2023; Thaler 2021; King et al. 2014).

In theory, residential relocation is strategic in terms of safeguarding values, both for the household and the local or regional administration. From a public health and safety perspective, it can reduce exposure to flood risks and mitigate related mental-health impacts (Biron et al. 2020; André et al. 2015). Furthermore, it benefits public administrations as it reduces the need for long-term protection investments and post-flood reconstruction costs (Boyer-Villemaire et al. 2021). For many years, researchers have supported relocation as a sustainable planning solution (McGuire and Lynch 2013; King et al. 2014). Decision-makers are also increasingly considering it in their climate change adaptation planning (O'Donnell 2022).

In practice, however, residential relocation can disrupt individuals' sense of attachment to space and place (Buffin-Bélanger et al. 2022). In addition, when used as a technical and one-off solution to reduce risk exposure, relocation tends to exacerbate socio-territorial inequities and reproduce the very problems it was meant to solve, namely securing individuals and the community (Tubridy et al. 2021). Socio-territorial inequities are caused by social vulnerability factors, such as age, economic status, belonging to a visible minority, the strength of social ties and networks, as well as from varying levels of exposure to environmental risks. Flood-risk zones tend to be characterized by high levels of socio-territorial inequities. As a result, the consequences of flooding tend to be more severe where these inequities are most pronounced (Lynn 2017; Bullard 1990; Bullard and Wright 2018).

When it comes to considering relocation as a response to flood risks, public plans often target materially and socially disadvantaged households, many of which are located in communities that have experienced multiple disasters. This repeated exposure increases their distress and limits their capacity to recover (Dundon and Camp 2021; Lowe et al. 2019; Siders 2019). Furthermore, financial compensations included in relocation programs—when there are any—are not always fair and can disadvantage homeowners (Thaler 2021; Siders 2019). In this context, some studies question the decision-making processes that lead to relocation plans, while others emphasize that relocation should not be left solely to individual initiative (Guillemot et al. 2014; Rey-Valette and Rulleau 2016). These concerns raise important issues of social justice, particularly in terms of recognition, procedural, and distributional justice.

Specifically, government relocation programs in North America and Europe seem to disadvantage populations facing socio-territorial inequities, such as racialized communities, indigenous communities, renters, older people, and so forth. (Thaler 2021). This might be explained by a lack of consideration for social justice issues while planning relocation (Siders 2019; Bullard 1990; Lester et al. 2022). Some studies point to a lack of transparency in the decision-making processes and reveal that vulnerable populations often feel coerced into accepting relocation programs, regardless of whether or not there are guarantees that buyout conditions will be favorable to the affected households (Siders 2019; Lynn 2017). Since flood-induced damages are generally more extensive for already precarious or neglected households, relocation programs mostly target lower-income populations (Siders 2019). In most cases, higher-income homeowners prefer protection solutions rather than relocation, which is not always financially feasible for poorer households, and even less so for tenants (Lester et al. 2022; Dundon and Camp 2021). Besides, homeowners usually have more social capital and political power to contest relocation decisions (Lester et al. 2022).

The body of knowledge assessing residential relocation as a risk management option remains relatively limited. Existing studies on relocation and its impact on populations often focus on buyout programs (O'Donnell 2022). Although socio-territorial inequities are increasingly considered by researchers, the ways in which these inequities interact with relocation warrant further study. More precisely, the impacts of planned relocation on living conditions, public health, and the environment should be further assessed. This scoping review seeks to address these gaps and to remedy these shortcomings.

To our knowledge, O'Donnell (2022) is the only systematic review that provides a comprehensive analysis of relocation. Focusing on “managed retreat” and “planned retreat” topics that do not fully encompass the broader scope of relocation. The study highlights that while the relocation topic is increasingly discussed, governance challenges remain, and other risk mitigation methods are still generally preferred. Although social justice dimensions were also addressed in the analysis, they were not the main focus of the systematic review. Building on O'Donnell's (2022) study, our scoping review will focus on the consequences of relocation on populations facing socio-territorial inequities.

By bringing together existing knowledge of relocation and social justice issues, this review aims to highlight the importance of considering the specific populations targeted by this adaptation measure. Our goal is to emphasize the diverse implications of relocation processes, as this adaptation is increasingly considered by decision-makers. Indeed, environmental pressures resulting from climate change are compelling us to seriously consider relocation as a means of adaptation, rather than relying on repeated interventions after each flood. The present research will focus on papers that study the situation in North America and Europe to maintain a similar and comparable socio-political and geographical context.

Objectives

This scoping review analyzes scientific and gray literature to identify the impacts of residential relocation on affected populations. We are addressing these impacts through the lens of social justice, specifically, recognitional, procedural and distributive justice. This approach aims to place us in a better position to assess the relevance of relocation as a climate change adaptation measure, particularly for populations facing socio-territorial inequities.

The following research question was developed based on the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) acronym (Aromataris and Munn 2020): What are the impacts of the relocation processes on populations facing socio-territorial inequities and flood risks?

More specifically, the objectives of this scoping review are to characterize the directs and indirect impacts of relocating at-risk homes—such as loss of social ties and support networks, stress and mental trauma, financial loss, degradation of territorial integrity and identity, community devitalization, and declining public services—on populations facing socio-territorial inequities, as well as identifying the related social justice issues.

This scoping review is particularly relevant given the limited amount of research conducted on relocation. Preliminary documentary searches have been conducted in October 2023 and updated in July 2025, in six databases that specialize in systematic reviews or in the field researched (Cochrane Library, Prospero, JBI, GeoBase [Engineering Village], Urban Studies Abstract [EBSCO], Web of Science) to find precedents, if any. These preliminary searches confirmed the importance of a thorough data-gathering process to analyze issues that warrant further research. Given that the aim of this review is to summarize the current state of knowledge of a still broadly defined topic, the scoping review format was chosen over a systematic review or an evidence gap map.

Methods

The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the methodological guide JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Aromataris and Munn 2020). The approach will therefore include the following steps: 1.

Defining and aligning the objective(s) and question(s).

Throughout the process, the PRISMA-ScR checklist will be used to double-check all necessary elements.

Results and Discussion

Since the terminologies defining the concept of relocation are varied and change in different contexts, as mentioned by O'Donnell (2022), a possible limitation of this protocol is related to vocabulary. While the search strategy was designed to be as comprehensive as possible, it may have overlooked articles that employed terminology outside our initial scope or unfamiliar to us. Furthermore, although we aim to translate articles written in languages not mastered by the researchers, some relevant studies may still be missed, since we will be using French and English keywords only.

However, we expect that the results of this scoping review will identify gaps in knowledge about the impacts of relocation on populations facing socio-territorial inequities. The results will guide future research to fill these gaps. Analyses of how socio-territorial inequities are addressed in the papers will enable us to compile the effects of relocation on different populations and the related social justice issues. We also hope to identify best practices regarding the planning of relocation and adaptation to climate change.

Author Contributions

This scoping review is carried out as part of the first author's thesis project. She therefore has content expertise, and so does the third author. The second author has, for his part, methodological expertise as he regularly conducts scoping and systematic reviews. The fourth author helped in the development of the search strategy in her capacity as a consulting librarian specializing in bibliographic research. Since our focus is on qualitative data, we do not need statistical expertise.