What about the “Stayers”? Examining China’s Resettlement Induced by Large Reservoir Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

All my comments are in attached PDF.

Regards,

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript covers the  issues around resettlement impacts  in the Chinese context. The manuscript is informative and good structured; the introduction and literature review provide sufficient background and include sufficient references.

There are some comments to the paper.

1. Line 214: It would be better to rename section 3 (e.g.'Materials and methods') and  divide it into 2 parts
2. Line 361: The section 4.5 'Public infrastructure' has the same name with the section 4.4.
3. 3 Line 363: Here you first enter the acronym SNWD and do not explain what it means.

Generally, after revision, the paper can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Remarks

Introduction

 “no-resettles” means?  In this section all information provide should be illustrative.

General question

How the authors joined non-resettle and nearby-resettles into the same studied group? Some justification about this choice shod be show. If I understood, the main difference between two groups is that the non-resettles don´t move from their original “space”, “only lost” part of their land, and the nearby-resettles group change from the original land to other different. Then, this difference is not important to consider two different groups? This fact should be explained.

Section 2.2

Perhaps move to Introduction Section or rearrange like this: Section2.2 would be Section 2.1, Section 2.1 would be Section 2.3, because 2.1. content is closer to Methodology section.  

Line 236.

Sample counties were chosen according to several criteria… Know these criteria may be very useful to understand the selection processes. Showing these in Table will be very useful.

Line 249

Counties were selected based on diversity and representativeness …  Which are the items used to calculated diversity and representativeness? How/Which was the selection processes/methodology used?

Line 253

Demographic Characteristics are used as a Method to sample selection or is used as a Result?

Lines 251-252

The number of questionnaires done for ORs and LBS groups are clearly unbalanced. This fact could affect the results obtained. A reflection/consideration about this fac should be done.

Line 267

The same case: 1162 ORs and 579 nearby-resettle.

Table 1.

The information provide by Table 1 is not seems very relevant. Perhaps the number of interviews, questionnaires, analyzed documents, socio-economic characteristic of interviewed people could be more useful to show a whole perspective of the “sample field”.

Lines 278, 279.

I understand the “problem of space limitation”, but shows a summary of commons characteristics (e.g., by a Table) could be very appropriate to take a view of “the whole picture” and facilitate the interpretation of the pointed-out differences.

Lines 279-281

Conclusions/results should be show after the data.

Line 283

“Land quality” means?  Which soil factor (s) the authors used to defined “land quality”?

In this part of the manuscript there are a lot of data figures through the text, perhaps incorporate these figures into a Table could contribute to a major understanding. The model/pattern could be Table 2.

Line 305

… abandoned forestry land surface… How much area? Which % in relationship with total area. We need some figure to compare/interpret the real effect of abandoned land.

Table 2
If you have the raw data about the number of LBS and the number of ORs houses with different areas, running water…, you could run  an ANOVA (variance analysis) in order to determine the statistical significance of the differences found.

The same to Figure 2 for Per-capita gross income.

Line 342

RMB means? I think that is the first time that RMB acronym appears in the text.

Section 4.4 and Section 4.5 have the same title. “Public infrastructural”

Lines 367-370

The authors talk about the “closed industries”. How many? Which percentage? Before/after water reservoir construction. Without this information is quite difficult a real interpretation about the harmful effects of the studied processes.

The same to Line 373. How many catering businesses closed or affected in some way?

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This article addresses a topic of great interest. Although focused on the research of China's Danjiangkou Reservoir as a case study, one of the main merits of the manuscript is that its authors provide very helpful knowledge about the impacts on certain social groups of the population resettlements that are taking place in China as consequence of the construction of large dams. This knowledge can even be extrapolated to the study of similar cases from outside China. In particular, in this article the authors compare the effects that the construction of the aforesaid large reservoir has on the following two social sectors: a) the out-resettlers (ORs), that is, those who resettle outside reservoir areas; and b) those who do not resettle, which are labeled in the text as the 'left-behind settlers (LBS)'. Comparing the situation of both social sector from a multidimensional and holistic perspective, the authors show that the most vulnerable and harmed by the construction of the reservoir are not the ORs, as certain studies that the authors cite have repeatedly said, but that the most negatively affected are precisely the seconds, the LBS. Thus, these are largely disadvantaged in terms of land asset, housing conditions, finance, infrastructure, industrialization, livelihoods and emotional impact, while many ORs are less impacted or even positively impacted in these aspects. In this way, the authors reach the following conclusion: "The findings show that the LBS are faced with many serious problems in terms of agricultural assets, housing conditions, finance, etc., and surprisingly, the ORs have experienced more positive changes in these aspects. The results of this study challenge the broadly held assumption that ORs are the most vulnerable group affected by reservoir construction, contribute to the current knowledge of the characteristics of a broader range of affected groups and critically assesses successful resettlement norms."

The work is theoretically well grounded and its authors make an exhaustive review of the relevant literature. Likewise, the text is well constructed and there is a clear argument structure and coherence between its successive epigraphs, in such a way that one leads to the other. All this makes reading and understanding the text easy for the reader.

However, there are some things that should be modified, in my opinion. First, I would move the following paragraph from the Methods Section to the Introduction: "The Danjiangkou Reservoir, which is a strategic mega-project in the middle route of the South-to-North Water Diversion (SNWD) project in China, was selected as our case study. The dam is located at the lower reach 0.8 km from the junction of the Han River and Dan River in Hubei, which is an inter-basin province in China (.............) which is located in Xichuan County in Henan Province, Wudangshan Special District, Danjiangkou City, Yin County, Luxi County, and Zhangwan District in Hubei Province [17, 20]. "

Another thing that I would reform is the Conclusion, which in its current status is too short and that means that the authors cannot show in it all the consequences and outcomes of the study previously carried out by them. Moreover, there is a statement in the conclusion that I am not sure if it should be in it or be eliminated. I mean when the authors say: "While four specific reasons for the gaps are analyzed, this research contends that the essential reason why LBS face a worse off situation is ground on the political nature of resettlement that seeks to render people and space more governable".  As cited in the text, this assertion is inspired in the article by Rogers, S .; Wilmsen, B. "Towards a critical geography of resettlement". Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2020, 44, 256–275. However, the fact is that the authors, although they cite this work in this part and in an earlier part of their article, do not fully take into account its theoretical implications when approaching their research neither in the conclusion nor in the previous development of their arguments. Consequently, they also do not sufficiently explain their earlier statement based on Rogers & Wilmsen. Personally, I think that what Rogers & Wilmsen say, if it is taken into account in depth and with all its consequences, would lead the authors of this manuscript to travel through some theoretical and markedly critical paths that they should assess whether they are willing or not to travel. Basically, it is about taking into consideration what Rogers & Wilmsen say about resettlement as a political practice linked to processes of deterritorialization and reterritorialization. Taking these processes into account allow Rogers & Wilmsen to construct a satisfactory explanation of "the political nature of resettlement that seeks to render people and space more governable". However, this quote taken from its context by the authors of the manuscript is not clear, nor is what is stated in it something that follows logically from the previous argumentative structure of the text. For all these reasons, I reiterate my suggestion that the authors consider whether to keep this quote or delete it (I'm not talking about not citing the article of Rogers & Wilmsen, but only about removing this quote). If the authors decide to keep the citation as it is now, then they should go into depth to develop, with the help of Rogers & Wilmsen, all that it means and contributes as a theoretical and critical framework for their work, several paragraphs of which should be rewritten in consonance with it. If instead, the authors choose to remove the citation then, as I said before, their work already has coherence and solidity in its current state.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper draws attention to an important issue in reservoir resettlement - the poor treatment of near-resettlees compared to distant-resettlees. However, the paper could be strengthened in a number of ways. More information could be provided on the resettlement process on the Danjiangkou Reservoir; were the resettled people offered a choice of near or far resettlement in every case and voluntarily made a decision on a household basis or was the decision made on a village basis? Were nearby-resettlees offered the same house size and design as distant-resettlees? What livelihood support in terms of replacement land was offered to nearby and distant-resettlees? Were any of the host households in the stayer communities offered the option of resettlement (I don't believe so as it was based on impact). Were nearby-resettlees offered the long term compensation payments that distant-resettlees were paid which bolstered their income by 7-10% and could largely explain their perceived improved livelihood situation?

The research methodology of grouping the nearby-resettlees and host community as stayers and comparing them to the distant-resettlees makes it difficult to understand the true impact of physical resettlement on each group. It would have been more beneficial to differentiate between four groups: nearby-resettlees, near host communities, distant-resettlees. This would have enabled a direct comparison between the post-resettlement situation of both the directly-impacted households (resettlees) and the indirectly-impacted households (host communities).

It should also be pointed out that the snowball sampling methodology for qualitative research has considerable risks. The researchers first contacts can have agendas that cause them to select participants who voice a particular narrative, positive or negative, and this can then lead to a cascade of similar narratives masking a more balanced understanding of the wider group.

Given a major impact of hydropower projects is that many people lose land who live near the reservoir but continue to live nearby, it isn't clear if those who lost only land were offered the choice of replacement land or distant resettlement.

By grouping nearby-resettlees and host communities as stayers and then saying that this group have poorer housing and income that might mask improvements for nearby-resettlees in the process. A common experience in resettlement is jealousy by host communities of nearby and distant-resettlees as they often get treated as special while the hosts remain in poverty. This could have been addressed more in the paper.

The paper's main narrative is that distant-resettlees are favoured over stayers. While the conclusion does that that "Lastly, this research does not expect to shift the vulnerable tag from distant-resttlees (check spelling) to the stayers"..."What we are opposed to is the labelling of any group as the most affected one, because how people are impacted can differ."

However, the clear message from the paper is that by labelling distant-resettlees as more vulnerable the stayers have been neglected.

The various resettlement frameworks are discussed but none is used to frame the research or outcomes. The authors state that "the questionnaire and its application were designed by an expert team to gather quantitative data related to household demographics, land, assets, facilities, incomes, employments and emotions, etc". The following categories are selected for analysis: land assets, housing conditions, finance, infrastructure and services, industrialization, livelihood strategies and emotions and feelings". It might have been useful to use one of the resettlement frameworks to analyze the resettlement impacts to present a holistic approach and to identify any gaps in the analysis.

Some evidence is presented that while the distant-resettlees are economically better off they suffer social isolation and are considered as invaders by their host communities who are forced to give up their community land to host them. This is a different situation for nearby-resettlees who have relationships with host communities who are more likely to welcome them. It is stated that there is 34% migration from stayer communities compared to 25% migration from distant-resettlees. However, this would indicate that distant-resettlees are also vulnerable both socially and economically and deserve long-term support.

Clearly, the better quality land for farming and economic development in distant-resettlement communities compared to the closing of polluting industries next to the reservoir accounted for the main differences in poverty standards between the two areas. However, it is also mentioned in the conclusion that 14% of the distant-resettlers moved back to the reservoir area. However, no further analysis is provided. Clearly the situation for distant-resettlers is also challenging as reported by Wilmsen on the three-gorges dam and other research. It is also important to highlight the finding that many of the distant-resettlees received considerable training but in many cases this did not lead to employment which is a worrying finding about the usefulness of alternative livelihoods. It is not clear whether the improved economic condition of the distant-resettlees was because of them being allocated better land, employment or ongoing subsidies.

It might be more appropriate to state that both the nearby-resettlers and distant-resettlers face considerable challenges and both deserve long-term support. In addition, the nearby host communities also face significant challenges and deserve more support because the declining size of communities and economic activities means that infrastructure and services decline.

The international standards require improved living conditions (housing, infrastructure and services) and livelihood restoration. It can be concluded that all impacted groups need to receive long-term investments in housing, infrastructure and economic development as a priority.

It would be helpful if the conclusion was clearer that while all groups suffered negative impacts and some groups suffered more there is a case for all groups to be classified as vulnerable and long-term support provided, particularly for nearby resettlers and their hosts in terms of declining infrastructure and services.

It might also be worth noting that the resettlement happened in a period of extraordinary economic growth which might benefit distant-resettlers moving to larger towns and cities where jobs are available. However, during future periods of economic contraction many of these rural migrants might get stranded in cities where they have lower skills and face social isolation. It might be argued that they would be more resilient if they stayed close to their original communities where they could rely on their long-standing social networks.

Given the research is already completed and well-reported my recommendation is for some minor revision to highlight some of the issues I have highlighted in my review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Overview

This paper brings together an experienced group of resettlement scholars to address an important disparity in China’s reservoir resettlement outcomes that deserves further analysis.

Taking the Danjiangkau reservoir as a case study this article compares the differences between “stayers” (defined here as both non-movers and close by movers) with far away or distant movers in terms of outcomes. The authors conclude that the stayers are largely disadvantaged in terms of land assets, housing conditions, finance, infrastructure, industrialisation, livelihood strategies and emotional impact, while many distant-resettlers do better on these measures.  

The value of this paper is in the comparison between the relatively neglected stayers and the better supported distant movers, which results in significantly better outcomes for the latter. The paper acknowledges the problems of treating in one category the near-stayers (receiving resettlement support but less than the far away movers) and non-movers (who receive no resettlement support at all). Nonetheless, the paper still makes a valid and useful comparison, and draws out some broader implications. 

Comments

I have three main comments. First, please provide, if possible, more data on  the relative characteristics of movers and stayers, and on whether certain characteristics determined the selection of distant movers. Were they more educated, younger, or self-selecting in some way that gave them additional resilience and motivation to achieve their better outcomes?

Second, please specify the regulations that applied. No international financiers were involved, but a range of national guidelines would have been expected to apply. There is reference to a long term “subsidy” – this scheme should be named.  Any other applicable guidelines should be named, for example State Council’s Regulations on Land Acquisition Compensation and Resettlement for the Construction of Large- and Medium-Sized Water Conservancy and Hydropower Projects of either 1991 or 2006 would have been expected to apply. This should be stated, as it sets the applicable standard for those resettling either nearby or at a distance. Both versions of the Regulations require compensation and subsidy in the initial stage and support in the later stage, but the 2006 Regulation provides a better safeguard for the displaced that the earlier 1991 Regulation.

Thirdly, please consider providing more project context at the beginning and end. This project is no regular hydropower reservoir. It is part of a high profile attempt to move water from a perceived “water surplus” area (Henan province) to a “water deficit” area, the dry north China plain, including the nations’ capital, Beijing.  Such massive transformations underpin continued economic growth on which the regime legitimacy depends – but the social risks arising from such projects must be addressed.  The distant resettlers, seen as the greatest social risk because they move furthest,  attract high government priority in resettlement. But the paper hints at emerging underlying environmental problems. The distant resettlers appear to have crowded out their hosts to some degree, whilst the non-movers faced major loss of livelihood due to a clean-up in the catchment area. They bore the brunt of new environmental policies associated with the reservoir but received no compensation nor livelihood assistance at all. This extended the scope of the social losers for this reservoir.  The authors rightly conclude that the “stayers are protecting the environment for others at the expense of their own development rights. This is because the key benefits of the Danjiangkou mega-project are externalised to drier northern China in the national interest while the costs of the project are unfairly borne by the stayer”. 

Is the sacrifice of the people in the water-contributing region justified? The jury is still out on the question of whether this huge and ambitious project is justifiable in economic, environmental and political terms. Here it is the political imperative for social stability that drives the resettlement response and its priorities. What looked, at the beginning, like another reservoir resettlement case study now raises interesting questions in regional development, environmental, social and economic tradeoffs and governance at various levels. This case confirms that a focus on the definition and interpretation of the public interest is an essential part of good resettlement practice, as is a pre-approval check on project economic, social and environmental viability and sustainability.  This case confirms that “avoiding and minimising displacement” should be conducted with rigorous project analysis and selection criteria, and not just relegated to a project design-modification process at best. The authors may wish to consider these points in finalising the text.

Finally, is there a specific reason to use “resettlee”? The usual term is "resettler".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf