Circular resettlement and ongoing risk: earthquakes, landslides, and the challenges of “integrated” reconstruction in Nepal

• “Circular resettlement” can be a sustainable livelihood strategy for disaster-displaced communities. • Community members’ perception of risk in both old/new settlements can contribute to decision-making and governance. • Contemporary resettlement policies are a product of regional political histories, as well as donor-driven intervention. • Resettlement is both a temporal and spatial process. • “Integrated” resettlement policies should proactively engage with community mobilities and livelihood needs. State-led resettlement projects that urge communities to move location due to anticipated future risk from hazards may result in patterns of “circular resettlement”, as displaced people circulate between integrated resettlement communities and still-accessible settlements of origin to create sustainable lives and livelihoods. Further, residents’ own perception of risk shifts in relation to experiences of resettlement. These findings result from in-depth ethnographic research with two communities in rural Nepal, both resettled after a post-earthquake Geohazard Assessment designated them at high risk from ongoing landslides. This empirical material frames four intertwined arguments: (1) when the impetus for state-led resettlement is the potential for future risk, rather than actually experienced destruction, households can develop patterns of “circular resettlement” to cobble together livelihoods that combine the affordances of both old and new locations of residence; (2) local, national, and regional political histories and aspirations for modernity significantly shape contemporary resettlement policies in tandem with donor-driven priorities; (3) understanding resettlement outcomes requires attention to the intersection of temporal and spatial dynamics in post-disaster residential decision-making; (4) moving between multiple differently hazardous locations produces new lived experiences of risk for resettled people, generating transformations in subjectivity that can contribute positively to collaborative risk governance. We conclude with a recommendation that in cases where original settlements remain accessible despite some level of recognized risk, policy-makers should consider the prospects for integration across original and resettlement locations, rather than exclusively within spatially bounded integrated resettlement sites that separate people from their agrarian livelihoods and affective connections to place.