Household Experiences of Displacement Due to Selected Road Expansion Projects in Iloilo City, Philippines

The development of infrastructure, particularly in the transport sector, has received significant scholarly attention due to its implications for sustainable development and environmental planning. Contemporary literature emphasizes that road expansion projects are not merely economic interventions but also spatial and environmental transformations that influence land use patterns, ecosystems, and human settlements. Therefore, there is growing recognition of the need for integrated infrastructure planning that balances economic efficiency, environmental sustainability, and social equity [12, 13]. This knowledge is also consistent with findings from around the world showing that investments in infrastructure have both positive and negative impacts on the environment. Research has shown that transportation systems improve mobility [3] and allows for the development of new areas, but also change how people live by making it easier or harder to move to a new location. These changes will be felt differently among different populations [14].

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is widely regarded as an essential tool in planning and policymaking for sustainable infrastructure development. It functions as a structured and forward-looking process that enables planners, decision-makers, and stakeholders to anticipate and evaluate potential environmental effects of proposed projects before implementation [15]. International environmental assessment literature further emphasizes that EIA serves as a preventive decision-support instrument that integrates environmental considerations into the early stages of development planning, rather than addressing impacts after project implementation [16, 17]. In this way, EIA ensures that environmental concerns such as air and noise pollution, biodiversity loss, ecosystem disruption, and land-use changes are systematically incorporated into planning and approval processes. Through structured evaluation, EIA promotes environmentally sound decision-making by encouraging mitigation measures, evaluating alternative project designs, and supporting sustainable development objectives [13, 17].

Nevertheless, EIA implementation has been found to be insufficiently executed by real-world studies. Glasson et al. [15] discovered that there was inadequate and late-stage stakeholder participation, which restricted the extent of community involvement in the decision-making processes affecting project-related environmental assessments, the value of public consultation and ultimately the overall effectiveness of the environmental assessment process. This issue has been noted in a broader body of literature on governance, which demonstrates the fact that participatory planning has not been consistently implemented within developing nations [16]. In the case of the Philippines, there has also been a lack of implementation of public infrastructure governance in terms of project execution and project follow-up execution [18].

A continuing challenge is that EIA recommendations are enforced weakly. While mitigative actions are identified during the environmental planning processes, many times those actions are poorly implemented for institutional reasons, political reasons and due to regulatory deficiencies. This creates a discrepancy between the environmental outcomes of projects as planned and as implemented; therefore, there is a gap between the objectives of the environmental planning process and the final implementation of the projects. EIA generally puts biophysical impacts at the forefront of its assessments but often downplays the impacts of project-related activities on social systems like losing one’s home, job, or sense of connection with other community members. Therefore, EIA primarily focuses on environmental dimensions, while social impacts such as displacement, livelihood loss, and community disruption are more appropriately addressed through complementary tools such as Social Impact Assessment (SIA). This distinction highlights the importance of integrating both environmental and social assessment frameworks in infrastructure planning.

The Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction (IRR) model identifies key risks associated with forced displacement, including landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, and food insecurity [10]. These risks indicate that displacement is not merely physical relocation but a multidimensional process affecting livelihoods and social structures. Cernea and McDowell [10]’s IRR framework emphasizes that without adequate resettlement planning, displaced populations may experience long-term impoverishment and vulnerability [10]. Environmental assessment systems tend to emphasize biophysical impacts while often underrepresenting social dimensions of displacement. These gaps are well acknowledged within the literature on environmental governance with calls for better integration of SIA frameworks [10, 13]. The IRR framework [10] is one of the most influential models for analyzing the phenomenon of displacement. This model outlines various key risks associated with displacement (e.g., landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, or marginalization, food insecurity, and the loss of social networks); thus, illustrating that displacement should not be considered just an act of physical relocation but rather as a complex multifaceted socio-economic process that can lead to heightened levels of vulnerability if not properly managed.

The literature on involuntary displacement is closely linked to infrastructure development and environmental assessment studies. The IRR model provides a widely accepted framework for understanding displacement risks and emphasizes that inadequate resettlement planning can result in long-term impoverishment [10]. Studies confirm that displaced populations often experience loss of income, weakened social networks, and difficulty adapting to new environments. Without adequate safeguards, displacement may deepen poverty cycles and increase vulnerability [10, 13].

In relation to this, international resettlement studies and policy frameworks indicate that infrastructure-induced displacement may result in long-term socioeconomic instability, impoverishment, and livelihood disruption when resettlement planning, compensation, and rehabilitation measures are inadequately implemented [10, 19]. These studies emphasize that displacement is not merely a physical relocation process but a complex socio-economic transformation that disrupts livelihoods, social networks, and community stability. Empirical evidence from development-induced displacement research further demonstrates that inadequate resettlement planning can result in impoverishment risks such as landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, and social disarticulation, particularly among vulnerable populations [10, 13]. In addition, international safeguard frameworks stress that effective resettlement planning must include livelihood restoration, social protection, and compensation mechanisms to minimize adverse impacts on affected households [11, 13].

According to the Asian Development Bank, infrastructure development within Asia is associated with broader regional development trends, including improvements in connectivity and economic performance as reflected in development indicators [12]. In the Philippines, infrastructure programs such as Build, Build, Build, and Build Better More have contributed to improved mobility, logistics efficiency, and regional connectivity [9, 12]. In a similar vein, Banister and Berechman [3] argued that transport infrastructure investment should be evaluated not only upon improvements in mobility or economic efficiency, but also upon their broader distributional impacts (including social equity) and environmental effects. Evidence from the most recent public documents that outline the country's infrastructure policies indicates that Build, Build, Build and Build Better More have played a large role in fostering the economic growth of the Philippines by providing jobs and improving connections between regions within the country. Data provided by government and foreign agencies regarding the effectiveness of infrastructure investments show that investing in infrastructure supports the overall development of the nation by enhancing mobility and logistics performance, as well as promoting regional integration in the Philippines [9, 12]. However, there is evidence in safeguard literature that although infrastructure programs generate significant economic benefits, inadequate resettlement planning and weak safeguard implementation can result in adverse social impacts, particularly when displacement occurs [11, 13]. Development-induced displacement literature indicates that expanded infrastructure projects can exert pressure on communities to relocate, disrupt livelihoods, and create social adjustment challenges associated with rapid urban development [10, 11]. This suggests that there is still a considerable gap between the benefits of infrastructure-led economic growth and inclusive social protection outcomes.

At the local level, there are examples from cases in Iloilo and other urban development literature – and thus there is evidence – that infrastructure expansion creates both economic growth (development) and social (e.g. resettlement) costs. Recently, Iloilo City has experienced rapid growth of its infrastructure; as a result (of the additional infrastructure), there has been an improvement in connectivity, mobility, and urban economic activity [20]. However, empirical research on infrastructure-related resettlement has shown that the development associated with the infrastructure also creates disparities in the distribution of housing quality, access to services, and the ability of displaced households to recover their livelihoods [21]. In addition, analyses of infrastructure-related and climate-change-related resettlement in Iloilo City suggest that relocation processes may generate new vulnerabilities when compensation mechanisms and reintegration support are unevenly implemented, leading to differentiated recovery outcomes among affected households [22, 23].

In recent research, Iloilo has been emphasized as one of the key locations for urban transformation in the Philippines that is based on infrastructure improvements. This includes evidence that from sustained political and institutional arrangements, there have been continual infrastructure improvements, especially related to urban service delivery and economic development [20]. However, these improvements also present challenges regarding equity, governance, and inclusive urban planning, particularly with regard to the equitable distribution of infrastructure benefits among social groups. When researching resettlement and urban vulnerability in Iloilo, empirical evidence indicates that individual households may experience improvements in housing and lower levels of exposure to environmental risk through relocation programs, while creating new forms of exclusion and inequity through loss of opportunities for livelihood recovery and accessing services [21, 22].

2.1 Synthesis of literature

According to the literature, transport infrastructure development is critical to economic growth, mobility and regional integration but also provides the basis for brevity and social consequences, such as land-use change, ecosystem disruption, and population displacement [3, 12, 13]. Although EIAs are widely used to manage the impact of transport infrastructure development on the environment, studies indicate that EIA effectiveness is often constrained by poor stakeholder participation, ineffective implementation and integration into project planning too late [15, 16].

Further evidence shows that EIAs tend to focus on the environmental impacts generated by production projects at the expense of fully considering the social impacts, particularly those associated with displacement and disruption to livelihoods. The IRR model [10] describes the multiple impoverishment risks associated with displacement including joblessness, landlessness and social disarticulation. Specifically, recent examples of transport infrastructure projects in both the global and Philippine contexts illustrate that although they can create significant development gains, they have also been shown to lead to a range of unequal resettlement outcomes and long-term socio-economic vulnerability, where effective safeguards did not exist [13].

Several studies conducted at the local level in Iloilo corroborate both sides of the dual effect produced by the impact of infrastructure developments on increased connectivity and increased levels of economic activity; however, these studies on the negative side of infrastructure developments also point out the problems caused by the housing, inequality, and livelihoods of those displaced due to developments. Overall, it is concluded from the literature that more integrated planning is needed to enhance the environmental safeguards and social protection of people through the development of infrastructure.

Despite extensive global, national, and local literature, several gaps remain. First, most studies focus on macro-level outcomes such as infrastructure efficiency, economic growth, and policy implementation, with limited attention to household-level lived experiences of displacement. Second, Philippine and Iloilo-based studies remain fragmented and largely administrative in nature, lacking integrated empirical assessments of economic, social, and health impacts at the community level. Third, limited research simultaneously examines economic, social, health, and perceived government assistance experiences of displaced households within a unified analytical framework. Therefore, there is a clear gap in understanding the localized and multidimensional lived experiences of households affected by road expansion projects in Iloilo City. This study addresses this gap by providing a community-level empirical analysis of infrastructure-induced displacement impacts.

This section discusses the results of the study conducted through interviews with affected families living in the vicinity of road construction projects in Iloilo province. The results of this study are presented in four parts and will be used as a basis to address any questions related to the reliability of the study. These four parts include: (1) characteristics of the respondents; (2) indicators used to collect survey data; (3) descriptive statistical values by mean before and after their relocation or displacement; and (4) calculated rates of change for residents based upon what they believed to have experienced before and after the completion of the road work. All data in this study must not be regarded as causally produced effects, but instead, they must only be understood as self-described perceptions that are reported by affected families.

This study gathers information through a standard survey tool that measures perceived condition before and after removal in three areas: economic, social and health. The study results are based on self-reported Likert-type responses and must be understood to reflect perceived condition changes and not objectively verified longitudinal or experimental outcomes.

4.1 General information of the affected households

Table 1 presents the demographic profile of respondents. The analysis shows that the majority were female (64.1%), married (69.0%), and within the 20–60 age range. Most respondents reported secondary education (51.0%), and the majority of households consisted of adult members aged 15–60 years (58.2%).

In terms of housing characteristics, most respondents lived in concrete structures (93.1%) and owned their homes (98.0%). Regarding livelihood, respondents were mainly self-employed (40.2%), with monthly incomes commonly ranging between ₱6,000–₱10,000 (46.4%) and monthly expenses mostly below ₱5,000 (55.6%).

4.2 Analysis of impact of road expansion project

Road expansion projects are commonly associated with improvements in transportation efficiency, regional accessibility, and economic activity. However, infrastructure development may also generate social, economic, and health consequences for communities directly affected by displacement and relocation.

EIA frameworks emphasize that infrastructure projects should be evaluated not only according to physical outputs and economic gains, but also according to their implications for social well-being, environmental sustainability, and community resilience [35, 36].

The findings presented in this study are based solely on the self-reported perceptions of affected households residing in selected road expansion areas in Iloilo City. The study does not claim direct causal relationships between road expansion and long-term socio-economic outcomes. Instead, the results reflect respondents’ perceived changes in conditions before and after displacement or relocation associated with the project.

Table 1. General information of the affected households

4.3 Survey indicators and basis for interpretation

Table 2 presents the survey indicators used to assess the economic, social, and health impacts of relocation. The structured surveys covering three dimensions (economic, social and health) were used in the current study to increase empirical transparency. Mean scores and percentage changes were calculated based on the perceptions of respondents' perception before and after relocation. Negative percentages represent perceived declines after relocation.

Some of the most frequent examples of indicators used to represent the effects of relocation on individuals included the following: Employment Opportunities; Income; Savings; Relationships with Others; Feeling Safe; Peace of Mind; Environmental Health Concerns; and Access to Healthy Community Resources and Activities.

Table 2. Survey indicators used in assessing the impacts

4.4 Economic impact

The findings in Table 3 indicate perceived declines in several economic conditions among affected households after displacement and relocation. Respondents reported decreases in self-employment opportunities, income, savings, occupational stability, and employment opportunities. The largest perceived declines were observed in self-employment opportunities (-18.79%), followed by income (-14.04%), and savings (-13.37%), while lower declines were observed in employment stability and occupational status.

Table 3. Economic impact indicators before and after the road expansion project

These findings suggest that respondents perceived disruptions in their livelihood conditions following relocation, particularly in self-employment and income-generating activities. Development-induced displacement literature consistently identifies livelihood disruption, economic marginalization, and reduced access to employment opportunities as major risks experienced by displaced households. Development-induced displacement is strongly associated with joblessness, loss of income sources, and increased economic vulnerability among affected populations [10]. Similarly, infrastructure projects often produce uneven socio-economic outcomes, where displaced groups experience greater economic stress compared to non-affected communities [37]. Lee et al. [38] further emphasized that transport infrastructure development may intensify socio-economic inequalities, particularly among marginalized and displaced populations who face reduced access to stable livelihoods and recovery opportunities. These literature references are used as interpretive lenses, not as confirmation of causal effects in the present study. Also, these conditions provide a clear explanatory lens for the observed outcomes in Table 3, particularly the moderate declines in self-employment opportunities (-18.79%), income levels (-14.04%), and household savings (-13.37%).

The perceived possible declines in savings and increases in living pressures that respondents reported may reflect a larger set of adjustment costs related to moving. According to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas [39], supply- and demand-side factors, global commodity prices, and domestic economic conditions influence the inflation outlook, which in turn affects household purchasing power and the cost of living.

While some survey participants expressed negative perceptions about the economy after moving, other respondents saw an increase in their ability to travel to get from one place to another, because new roads have made it easier for people to get where they want to go. Research has shown that investments in road infrastructure can enhance the ability of people and businesses to move efficiently throughout their regions, which promotes economic growth through the integration of local economies. Many researchers believe that the primary reason infrastructure has such a huge influence on the growth of a region is because it reduces the cost of doing business and allows businesses in one area to sell products or provide services to customers in another area through the improved flow of products and services throughout their region [14]. Other researchers have stated that infrastructure has been found to promote economic growth because it allows businesses and consumers to remain connected and integrated with one another across a wide variety of locations [40]. But not everyone experiences the benefits of new infrastructure development, as the distribution of these benefits is often uneven across affected populations and communities [41].

Besides this, transportation infrastructure can generate varied economic outcomes depending on location and social positioning Earlier studies, however, indicate that transportation investments do not benefit the same way throughout a region; thus, they could create negative effects on certain populations (such as low-income or geographically disadvantaged populations). The nature of transportation investments and how they affect communities can cause changes to how communities access goods and services but also, in many instances, impact the types of jobs available within a community [37, 38]. This overall pattern reveals that adequate opportunities are lacking for individuals who do not live near areas where transportation improvements occur. Thus, if transportation investments are not equitably distributed or do not benefit all community members equally, then an alternative planning process that includes all members of a community is necessary to prevent furthering already-existing disparities.

4.5 Social impact

Table 4 presents the respondents’ perceptions of the social impacts before and after the road expansion project. According to survey results, there was a perceived decline in many of the indicators associated with community stability and social cohesion. Respondents reported lower ratings for the following indicators: peace and order in the community; social relationships; safety of life and property; neighborhood relationships; and family well-being.

Table 4. Social impact indicators before and after the road expansion project

The indicators that showed the greatest decline were peace and order within the community (-17.60%), social relationships/values (-17.70%), and safety of life (-15.82%), and safety of property (-15.43%). These responses suggest that respondents perceived a moderate weakening of social relationships and community cohesion after relocating.

The literature on social cohesion supports this notion, and indicates that relocation or displacement tends to diminish trust within a neighborhood or community, decrease mutual support, and erode established community networks [42]. Displacement and relocation processes may cause such social connections to break down, thereby disrupting the established network of informal support systems. Additionally, Lucas et al. [37] indicated that when these connections are broken, there is a reduction in social interaction and loss of relationship within the community, ultimately affecting the stability and resiliency of the population that was displaced or relocated.

The research on the implications of resettlement and/or displacement has demonstrated that relocation can lead to a loss of social cohesion as adult household members are removed from long-standing neighborhood relationships and social support systems [10]. The displaced had experienced a decline in their relationships with neighbors, and an increase in concern regarding conflicts within the community, which is consistent with prior adjustments to new social environments caused by being forced to relocate to an unfamiliar place. Similar results were found by researchers of involuntary resettlement and displacement [43].

Previous research on community severance indicates that major roadway infrastructure has the potential to create physical and social fragmentation in neighborhoods by physically separating residents from one another, and providing a psychological barrier to social interaction between people from that neighborhood, better known as “community severance” [44]. Furthermore, transportation/roadway infrastructure may play a role in socio-spatial fragmentation and disconnect the established neighborhood network [38], placing additional emphasis on the social costs of large-scale infrastructure development.

The study presents additional evidence of diminished local culture preservation as a result of displacement from transportation systems. It is possible that displacement will change how people in an area interact with one another and result in a weakened sense of community identity. Long-term changes in the way land are used for development of infrastructure may change the physical structure of a community, often resulting in reduced social interaction of members of the affected communities and a decrease in cultural cohesion [38, 45]. Environmental changes may disrupt existing social systems and cultural practices connected to specific locations [38, 45], and therefore influencing their development of community identity and provide a means of interaction. Communities that are considered to have a close relationship with their natural environment are likely to experience a similar result when roads constructed for an expanding metropolitan area disrupt their existing networks within their community [46].

Whenever residents are removed from their communities due to the development of infrastructure, such as new road construction, that will displace them to an area that has different social structures than those in which they resided, they experience similar changes in community interactions and participation in cultural activities [45]. Previous research supports this finding that the built environment and displacement can weaken the traditional structure of a community or disrupt the identity of a neighborhood.

Overall, the overall investigation demonstrates that while improved movement options and physical accessibility can provide benefits, there are many detrimental effects to be found within the community as a result of expanded roadway projects. Such effects include reduction in your neighborhood social interaction and so forth between two or more groups within their particular areas creating a lesser sense of belonging; therefore providing evidence of the social consequences of displacement due to infrastructure improvements being undertaken.

4.6 Health impact

Table 5 indicates that respondents generally perceived a decline in health and well-being after displacement and relocation. Specifically, respondents reported decreases in life satisfaction, peace of mind, mutual compassion, and increased concerns related to environmental stressors such as noise and pollution.

In terms of the greatest perceived declines, “Noise causes health problems” recorded the highest decrease (-16.22%), followed by “Struggle for competition” (-15.66%), and “Satisfaction in life” (-12.22%). These results suggest that respondents perceived moderate environmental and psychosocial stressors following relocation.

As described in the public health literature [44, 45], environmental stressors associated with transportation infrastructure development may negatively affect public health. Several studies document that infrastructure projects can generate adverse environmental exposures such as traffic noise, air pollution, and reduced social cohesion, which may contribute to negative health outcomes. Changes in transportation infrastructure may also alter the built environment, influencing patterns of exposure and community interaction.

Table 5. Health impact indicators before and after the road expansion project

The built environment plays a significant role in shaping health outcomes, particularly through exposure to environmental stressors such as traffic congestion, noise, and air pollution. Studies on urban transport systems have identified traffic-related noise, environmental degradation, and weakened social cohesion as key factors associated with stress, anxiety, and reduced quality of life among affected populations [42, 45]. In addition, transportation-related emissions have been linked to respiratory and cardiovascular risks in densely populated urban areas [47].

Respondents additionally perceived declines in indicators associated with environmental quality including pollution-related concerns and headache-related effects from construction activities. Although these findings are based on subjective perceptions rather than clinical measurements, they reflect continuing concerns among residents regarding environmental conditions and personal well-being after relocation. Infrastructure works and increased traffic exposure often generate noise pollution, air pollution, and other environmental disruptions that negatively affect residents’ perceived quality of life and overall perceived health status [38, 48].

Results indicate that although transport infrastructure has the potential to enhance mobility and access, it can also create additional environmental and psychosocial stressors that compromise the well-being of communities. Other studies examining transport-related infrastructures exhibit similar patterns, with positive outcomes seen through greater accessibility to services and increased economic opportunity against negative outcomes on communities in proximity to new infrastructure projects [40, 41]. Thus, transportation infrastructure can enhance individuals’ mobility and access to services, jobs, and opportunities [49], while creating additional localized environmental and psychosocial stressors for individuals residing near the facility [38]. This dual impact of infrastructure development shows that while infrastructure development contributes to functional and economic gains within communities, infrastructure development may pose risks to the overall well-being of the community, and the risks associated with infrastructure development can be mitigated through inclusive and health-sensitive planning processes.

Based on the results of the study, it appears that there is mixed evidence regarding the perceived effects of road construction and relocation on health and well-being. Respondents expressed concern about their environment and psychosocial well-being after being displaced from their homes due to road construction and/or relocation. While respondents reported increased mobility and accessibility due to the construction of new roads and/or relocation, they also reported experiencing environmental stresses and difficulties adjusting socially and psychologically because of the changes imposed on them. This clearly demonstrates the importance of considering both environmental health-related safeguards and community-sensitive planning when undertaking infrastructure projects.

4.7 Benefits received by affected households from the government

Table 6 presents the benefits received by affected households from the government following the road expansion project. Findings indicate that the majority of those responding received relocation assistance through an Alternative Housing Site. Additionally, while the overall support provided to affected households can be considered to be primarily focused on the provision of physical resettlement assistance (i.e., housing), and therefore relatively little on support for restoring livelihoods, restoring socio-economic systems through an effective means of resettling displaced households, (e.g., support for obtaining and maintaining income).

Table 6. Benefits received by affected households on the road expansion project

This same pattern is found frequently within the context of infrastructure-induced displacement, in which, program objectives related to the desired outcomes of an effective resettlement strategy ("shelter" or temporary), will usually dominate the provision of resettlement assistance compared with supporting a family to achieve or restore the needed components of their income, (e.g. creating a source of employment; establishing family networks and support systems). As noted throughout the resettlement literature, the provision of adequate housing does not fully address other socio-economic factors resulting from involuntary displacements [43].

Cernea [43] has developed an IRR Framework that recognizes the multiple risks associated with being displaced (for example: landlessness, joblessness, lack of access to services) and stresses the need for comprehensive mitigation strategies that extend beyond just physically relocating people [10]. Relatedly, there are guidelines established by international organizations governing the acquisition of land and compensation for land taken from people, which state that to minimize the social and economic risks of displacement through resettlement, resettlement programs have to be fair, transparent and context-sensitive [50].

Both of these sets of guidelines highlight that successful resettlement requires a holistic strategy, providing not only housing but also restoring livelihoods and providing social support systems and implementing ongoing measures to rehabilitate people who have been displaced.

In this study, while some participants indicated they were provided with assistance for their livelihoods, those responses indicated assistance for their livelihoods was secondary to provision of housing. Thus, although post-displacement assistance may help impacted households recover economically, it may not adequately address their needs in regards to generating income and/or maintaining stable employment.

The resettlement literature emphasizes the need for effective integrated programs as part of an overall support system, including participatory arrangements, social services, and long-term restoration of livelihoods for displaced persons [10, 50]. These components are necessary, or else displaced persons will continue to be at high risk of socio-economic vulnerability even after being physically relocated.

In this case, resettlement assistance appears to be largely limited to housing, and there is little focus on social or livelihood rehabilitation. The findings provide evidence of a significant gap between current relocation implementation and internationally accepted standards for sustainable and inclusive resettlement.