The degree of suddenness of a climate hazard influences any subsequent relocation in multiple ways – from the institutional response to the psychosocial experience for affected communities – requiring approaches tailored to different timelines.

Relocations have occurred throughout history in response to non-climate-related drivers, such as infrastructure development or the establishment of protected areas. Relocation can also be triggered by hazards without a climate driver, including earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Today, however, climate change is emerging as a key driver of relocation, both through slow-onset processes such as sea-level rise, melting permafrost and coastal erosion, and by intensifying sudden-onset events, including tropical cyclones, severe storms, extreme rainfall and flooding, storm surges and, in some regions, climate-induced landslides.[1]

Often, multiple hazards with different temporalities, including slow and sudden onset, interact and compound one another’s impacts. In addition, sudden onset hazards such as floods are not necessarily experienced as single events but can be cyclical and repetitive. Yet, while repeated floods may prompt in situ adaptations that help residents tolerate them, climate change is intensifying these events, making them increasingly severe and unpredictable and, at times, forcing relocation. It is also important to note that climate-driven hazards do not operate in isolation: they intersect with historical, political and economic factors, shaped by past or ongoing colonial processes and structural inequalities, to shape vulnerabilities.

In practice, however, one hazard typically becomes the primary trigger for relocation. This underscores the need to account more explicitly for the temporal characteristics of hazard type – slow-onset or sudden – in relocation policy and practice.

Climate-related community relocations are gaining prominence in climate policy. Alongside this, research and policy frameworks have begun to recognise the complexity of relocation and the need for context-specific, rather than standardised, approaches, marking important steps toward more just and sustainable outcomes. For example, the Fiji government is refining risk assessments by incorporating broader notions of (un)inhabitability, and research is demonstrating the need for more long-term collaboration among relocation actors for more inclusive decision-making and strengthened cross-sectoral coordination of funding mechanisms.[2] We extend this discussion by emphasising that the temporality of climate-related hazards, whether slow- or sudden-onset, plays a fundamental role in shaping relocation processes and outcomes.

Four key differences

In this article, we draw on our research with communities across Oceania and Latin America, including those living in places identified for potential relocation, those with direct relocation experience, and those resisting relocation, to elaborate on the differences between the choices available to those affected by slow and/or rapid onset hazards. We identify four key areas where temporality influences the ability of at-risk communities to initiate relocation and secure meaningful support: (1) institutional support and access to funding instruments; (2) opportunities for negotiation and rights protection; (3) levels of acceptability of relocation; and (4) the psychosocial implications and availability of support mechanisms for grief and loss.

1. Institutional support and access to funding

A major barrier to just and equitable community-led relocation and adaptation is the lack of institutional support, including technical and financial support, coupled with limited access to information and funding. While sudden-onset hazards often capture media attention and trigger rapid emergency assistance, slow-onset hazards, in which people’s needs build gradually over time, tend to receive far less recognition and resources.

The case of Qoma Island in Fiji highlights these disparities. Following the devastating impacts of Cyclone Winston in 2016, which destroyed most houses on the island, the local community recounts receiving significant support, including the reconstruction of houses and the provision of new homes, even for families who before had been without a house. Some village members reflect that, paradoxically, while cyclones bring devastation, they also attract much-needed assistance that is otherwise out of reach. In the aftermath of the cyclone, the government also proposed a relocation plan. However, the community rejected this based on their intimate connection to their lands and reefs. Instead, the community has consistently advocated for the construction of a sea wall, viewing it as the only acceptable adaptation measure that would allow them to remain on their ancestral land. This need has become increasingly urgent, as the island continues to lose land to the sea, and homes and grave sites are frequently flooded during king tides (exceptionally high tides). While the community has succeeded in securing some funding for nature-based coastal protection efforts, they have not yet received support for a sea wall.

Thus, while sudden- and slow-onset hazards interact and compound each other’s impacts on Qoma Island, they generate very different forms of institutional response. This disparity underscores how institutional attention is unevenly distributed across different types of hazard, often privileging emergency support after sudden disasters over preventative measures against slower, long-term threats.

2. Opportunities for negotiation

Another significant difference relates to the amount of time communities have to negotiate the terms of their relocation, which directly affects how human rights are respected or overlooked in the process. While many relocations occur within the context of a combination of both hazard types, the pace at which impacts unfold shapes the opportunities for communities to advocate for their rights and influence relocation decisions.

In the case of slow-onset hazards, communities often have more time to engage with state authorities and negotiate the relocation process, even if these negotiations are imperfect. For example, the Guna Yala community of Panama’s Gardi Sugdub island began discussions on relocation well in advance of the anticipated impacts of sea-level rise. Negotiations started more than a decade before the first moves took place, with government-led construction of new housing beginning in 2018 and the first families relocating in 2024.  While social participation in the planning process was limited and the community ultimately had to accept the project as designed, the extended timeline nonetheless provided space for long-term dialogue and engagement that would not be possible in a sudden-onset context.

In contrast, sudden-onset hazards leave little time for negotiation, often forcing communities to accept relocation under emergency conditions with fewer safeguards for their rights. For example, after a severe flood in 2018, the community of La Curvita in Salta, Argentina, was evacuated from the banks of the Pilcomayo River and later relocated 12 kilometres inland. For months, residents lived in tents along a highway, exposed to the elements and without adequate protection – conditions that compromised their rights to housing, health and security. Government authorisation for relocation took several months, during which only minimal financial assistance was provided. As a result, many families moved into new houses that remained incomplete and precarious even years later. The lack of planning and support also affected their access to essential services such as education, healthcare and water.[3]  This case illustrates how the urgency of sudden-onset hazards can lead to relocation processes that undermine basic human rights, leaving communities in prolonged states of vulnerability.

3. Levels of acceptability of relocation 

Relocation can only proceed when it is acceptable to the community itself. For example, the 2018 planned relocation policy guidelines by the Fiji government stress that any relocation must be carried out with the community’s free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), a principle grounded in the right to self-determination and protected under the International Labour Organization’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). Our research shows that levels of acceptability can in part be shaped by the type of hazard experienced and the urgency it creates.

Importantly, what is considered acceptable is not fixed; it shifts over time and under different circumstances.[4] During sudden-onset disasters, communities may come to accept relocation more quickly, as decisions are forced by immediate circumstances rather than prolonged negotiation. The experience of El Bosque in southern Mexico illustrates this dynamic. Following a severe storm that flooded homes and left many families without shelter, the community perceived relocation as an urgent necessity to ensure safety. In this context, relocation was broadly accepted, not because it aligned with long-term community aspirations, but because the immediate risks made it the only viable option. However, this urgency also meant the community had little influence over critical aspects of the process, such as the location of the new settlement or the design of the housing. [5]

By contrast, communities facing slow-onset hazards often have more time to consider alternatives, weigh cultural and livelihood implications, and negotiate conditions before accepting relocation. Whilst Qoma islanders are still looking for support for a seawall, the village women’s group has secured international funding for nature-based solutions to coastal erosion, supporting them in planting mangroves and vetiver grass to protect their grave site from sinking further into the sea. Whilst additional support is still needed, this is an example of how a community is engaging in processes to negotiate for adaptation on its own terms – allowing it to stay in place and ensure cultural continuity. Yet, this extended timeline can also lead to prolonged uncertainty, with divided opinions emerging and consensus harder to achieve. The level of hazard urgency therefore plays a decisive role in shaping how, when and under what conditions relocation is deemed acceptable by the affected population.

4. Psychosocial implications

The temporal nature of the hazards that trigger or lead to relocation significantly shapes psychosocial implications and the types of support that are available and required. In sudden-onset-related relocation, displacement can occur with little or no warning, often leaving people with a profound sense of shock and disempowerment. Grief may be intensified by the abrupt severing of ties to place, household and communal infrastructure and social networks. Emotional responses are often acute, with heightened risk of post-traumatic stress, and anxiety.[6] Support systems – including emergency housing, financial assistance and crisis counselling – are usually more readily available and mobilised quickly, but they tend to be short term. For example, in Grantham, Australia, a catastrophic rainfall event which led to a flash flood destroyed homes and claimed 12 lives, triggering a community relocation where the first house was built and occupied within one year. Yet, despite this fast pace of relocation, years later, the psychosocial and community impacts of the displacement and relocation continue to be felt in the community.

In slow-onset relocations, the psychosocial trajectory is often shaped by a prolonged period of uncertainty. People may experience anticipatory or ambiguous loss, mourning a home and way of life that still exists but is known to be at risk. This can lead to chronic stress and an erosion of identity and belonging. The longer time, however, can also create opportunities for participatory planning and adaptation of livelihoods, which can ease the psychosocial implications of the relocation. In Vidawa, Fiji, the community has been experiencing coastal erosion and flooding for over a decade.[7] In response, they have initiated their own relocation plan, moving gradually away from the coastline. This slow, community-led process has allowed residents to negotiate relocation terms, decide who moves and when, and retain control over decision-making. As many continue to live between the old and new sites, they maintain connections to both places, which can help ease feelings of grief and loss. However, this connection also means that grief is often tied to concern for the safety of those who remain at the original site, and to the ongoing transformation of a place that still holds deep meaning.

Implications for the future

Our comparative reflections from Australia, Fiji, and across Latin America have demonstrated that sudden-onset hazards often trigger rapid institutional response, emergency assistance, and immediate relocation, but offer limited opportunities for negotiation or meaningful participation, which can compromise rights and long-term wellbeing. Slow-onset hazards, by contrast, unfold over time, providing space for negotiation, community-led planning, and adaptation measures that align with local worldviews. Yet, they are frequently under-recognised by institutions, face limited funding, and can create prolonged uncertainty and anticipatory grief.

For practitioners and policy-makers, this means designing relocation frameworks that are adaptable to different hazard timelines, while ensuring that fundamental rights, including participation, cultural continuity and access to adequate housing, are safeguarded in all contexts. This could include integrating approaches that address the trauma and psychosocial needs of sudden-onset relocation; engaging in ongoing dialogue with communities considering relocation to understand changing levels of acceptability; strengthening institutional channels between communities facing slow-onset hazards and government actors to foster support for preventative measures; and establishing safeguards (legal, procedural and institutional mechanisms to protect human rights) for people relocated by sudden-onset hazards in the time between displacement and relocation. Future research and policy development should focus on bridging the gap between international guidelines and local realities, building tools that can accommodate the distinct challenges posed by different hazard types. Above all, relocation must be pursued only when communities themselves determine it is necessary and must be implemented in ways that strengthen, rather than erode, their rights, agency and resilience.

 

Claudia Fry
PhD student, Department of Geography, University of Exeter, UK, and visiting researcher, School of Law and Social Sciences, University of South Pacific, Fiji
c.fry@exeter.ac.uk

Giovanna Gini
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Geography, Kings College London, UK
giovanna.a.gini@kcl.ac.uk

Annah Piggott-McKellar
Research Fellow, School of Architecture and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
a.piggottmckellar@qut.edu.au

 

[1] IPCC (2022) Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press

[3] Redes Chaco ‘Migraciones ambientales en el Gran Chaco Americano’

[4] Bower E, et al (2025) ‘Priorities for consent-based and well-supported climate relocations’, Nature Communications, Vol 16: 5412

[5] Amnesty International ‘Mexico: Climate Displaced People Need a Home Urgently’

[6] Cianconi P, Betrò S and Janiri L (2020) ‘The Impact of Climate Change on Mental Health: A Systematic Descriptive Review’, Frontiers of Psychiatry, Vol 11: 74

[7] Link AC, et al (2025) ‘Climate-related partial relocation in Fiji impacts the wellbeing of those who relocated and those who stayed differently’, Communications Earth & Environment, Vol 6: 394

READ THE FULL ISSUE