There is ample evidence that points out that resettlement is not advisable, unless it is indeed the last resort (Jain et al. 2017), and can be achieved through a thorough, holistic, participatory and inclusive social process. Faced with this conclusion, then, why is it still undertaken, increasingly frequently, and who initiates it? When resettlement is promoted with the objective of reducing risks, either pre-emptively or post-disaster, how are ‘risks’ defined and by whom? How much power do ‘at-risk’ people have in these decisions and at what stages? Ultimately, what bearing do these decision-making processes have on the resettlement outcomes?