The impacts of DID can be systematically analyzed through the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, which conceptualizes livelihoods in terms of access to interconnected livelihood assets or capitals [8][9]. Displacement can disrupt these assets in complex and mutually reinforcing ways.

Social capital, networks, trust, and institutional linkages often erodes as displacement fragments communities and disrupts traditional leadership structures [6]. In Uganda’s oil development areas, displacement and resettlement have disrupted social networks and livelihood resources, while also creating difficulties for affected households in rebuilding their livelihoods after relocation [2][10][11]. Similar disruptions to livelihood assets and social relations have been documented in other African displacement contexts, including Rwanda and Ghana, where resettlement adversely affected household livelihood systems and access to key social and institutional resources [5][6]. Human capital, comprising skills, education, health and labor capacity, can be either enhanced or eroded by displacement. However, livelihood reconstruction following resettlement may be constrained when affected households lack appropriate employment opportunities and struggle to adapt their existing skills to new livelihood systems [12]. In Uganda’s oil-development context, displacement has also disrupted established livelihoods and access to social services, creating additional challenges for affected households in rebuilding their human and livelihood capacities [11][13].

Natural capital, including land, forests, water and biodiversity, often suffers some of the most immediate effects of displacement. In Uganda’s Albertine Graben, oil development and associated land acquisition have contributed to displacement and restrictions on access to natural resources, including fishing grounds, firewood and other resources on which local livelihoods depend [13]. In Ethiopia, state-driven agricultural expansion and associated resettlement have similarly constrained local access to land and other natural resources, placing pressure on established agro pastoral livelihoods and food-production systems [14][15].

Physical capital, including housing, transport and productive infrastructure, may improve where resettlement provides better infrastructure and access to basic services. However, such gains are not automatic, as inadequate infrastructure and services can constrain livelihood restoration following relocation [1][16]. In Uganda’s oil-development context, resettlement provided some households with replacement housing and other benefits, but these gains were accompanied by losses in land, livelihood assets and access to important resources [2].

Financial capital, including income, savings and access to credit, can be directly affected by compensation arrangements. Although cash compensation provides households with immediate financial resources, the longer-term benefits depend on their ability to convert compensation into sustainable livelihood activities and productive assets. Evidence from Uganda’s oil-refinery project indicates that cash-compensated households experienced greater difficulties adapting to post-displacement conditions than households formally resettled through land and/or housing [10].

Food security is a central concern in DID contexts and is closely linked to changes in livelihood capitals. Loss of agricultural land and restrictions on access to livelihood resources can reduce households’ capacity to produce and access adequate food, increasing vulnerability to food insecurity [3][13]. Displaced households may experience reduced food consumption and deterioration in dietary quality where relocation disrupts incomes and access to affordable food [6]. Evidence from flood-affected rural communities in Pakistan further demonstrates that households may respond to livelihood disruption by modifying and diversifying their livelihood strategies to rebuild their productive capacity [17]. However, these strategies’ success is contingent on post-displacement support services and institutional engagement.

Compensation, whether provided through resettlement packages or cash payments, can significantly influence households’ capacity to adapt following displacement. However, post-displacement adaptation is shaped not only by the form of compensation received but also by households’ access to livelihood assets, income-generating opportunities and livelihood-restoration support in the resettlement environment [16][18][19]. However, irrespective of the compensation modality, affected households may experience continued livelihood erosion where livelihood-restoration measures, institutional support and post-resettlement follow-up are inadequate [1][20].

Institutional support is critical to post-displacement livelihood recovery. Access to livelihood-restoration programs, skills development, financial assistance and sustained institutional support can strengthen households’ capacity to rebuild their livelihoods and adapt to post-resettlement conditions [21]. However, such support is not always sustained beyond the initial relocation period, potentially constraining the long-term recovery of affected households [22]. In Uganda’s oil-development context, shortcomings in the institutional management of compensation, together with reduced access to productive assets and livelihood resources, have constrained the capacity of some project-affected households to rebuild sustainable livelihoods following displacement [2][23].

While the body of literature on development-induced displacement (DID) and oil-related displacement is expanding, many studies examine specific aspects, such as land loss, social disruption or compensation adequacy, without integrating these within a broader analysis of livelihood capitals, food security, adaptation strategies and post-displacement support. In addition, limited attention has been given to how different compensation arrangements, together with accompanying support services, influence household livelihood recovery.

The primary focus of this review is livelihood recovery following oil and gas-related development-induced displacement. The review synthesizes empirical evidence on changes in household livelihood capitals (social, human, natural, physical and financial) food security, livelihood adaptation following different compensation arrangements, and support services available to displaced households. Evidence from other forms of development-induced displacement, particularly mining, dams and large infrastructure projects, is included where it provides relevant comparative insights into these dimensions of livelihood recovery. Evidence relating to disaster-induced and refugee displacement is used only for contextual comparison and is not treated as directly equivalent to planned development-induced displacement.

Drawing on peer-reviewed studies, institutional reports and empirical theses published between 2011 and 2025, the review seeks to provide an integrated evidence base to inform displacement planning, compensation design, livelihood restoration and post-displacement support in oil and gas development contexts.

The review addresses the following question: How does oil and gas related development induced displacement affect household livelihood capitals, food security and livelihood adaptation, and how are these outcomes shaped by compensation arrangements and post displacement institutional support?

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, ensuring a transparent, replicable, and comprehensive synthesis of evidence. The review process was designed to identify, evaluate, and integrate empirical literature relevant to the effects of development-induced displacement (DID), particularly from oil and gas projects, on livelihood capitals (social, human, natural, physical, and financial), food security, compensation effects on livelihood adaptation strategies, and support services available to displaced households.

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between January 2011 and February 2025. The search covered peer-reviewed and grey literature, primarily through Google Scholar and Research Gate, supplemented by searches of institutional repositories, including Makerere University, and international organization databases, including UNHCR and the World Bank. Reference lists of relevant publications were also examined to identify additional eligible studies.

Search terms were developed from the study’s conceptual framework and literature on development-induced displacement and sustainable livelihoods. Boolean operators (AND and OR) and phrase searching were used to combine terms relating to displacement, livelihood capitals, compensation and adaptation, food security, and post-displacement support. For livelihood capitals, the principal search string was: (“development-induced displacement” OR “project-induced displacement” OR “oil-induced displacement” OR “oil and gas induced displacement” OR “oil development resettlement”) AND (“livelihood” OR “livelihood capital assets” OR “livelihood recovery” OR “household capital assets”). Compensation and adaptation were searched using: (“development-induced displacement” OR “project-induced displacement” OR “oil-induced displacement” OR “resettlement”) AND (“cash compensation” OR “land compensation” OR “land-for-land” OR “house-for-house”) AND (“livelihood adaptation” OR “livelihood restoration” OR “household adaptation strategies”).

Food security searches combined the displacement terms with (“household food security” OR “displacement and household food security” OR “food security status” OR “food security”), while post-displacement support searches combined them with (“household support services” OR “displacement and support systems” OR “post-displacement institutional support” OR “post-recovery support systems”). These combinations were applied in Google Scholar and Research Gate, with related terms used to search institutional repositories and international organization databases. Backward citation chaining was undertaken by examining reference lists of eligible publications for additional relevant studies. Search results were consolidated and duplicates removed before screening (Table 1).

Table 1. Search terms, association of words, and selection of results for the study.

Source: Systematic literature review (2026).

The searches identified 15,640 records across the predefined search domains. After removing records that were inaccessible through closed-access sources (n = 5770) or had no accessible full-text links (n = 1987), 7883 records were available for further consideration. Duplicate records occurring across the search domains were subsequently removed, leaving 576 unique records for screening.

The 576 records were screened against predefined eligibility criteria. Studies were retained if they were published between 2011 and 2025, addressed development-induced displacement, and provided empirical evidence relevant to at least one of the review domains: livelihood capitals, food security, compensation and livelihood adaptation, or post-displacement support services. The review primarily focused on oil- and gas related development-induced displacement. Studies relating to other forms of development induced displacement, particularly mining, dams and large infrastructure projects, were retained where they provided relevant comparative evidence on livelihood recovery. Eligible sources included peer-reviewed studies, institutional reports and empirical theses relevant to the review objectives.

Records were excluded where they fell outside the 2011-2025 review period, did not address development-induced displacement or a relevant comparative development context, did not examine any of the specified livelihood recovery domains, or lacked sufficient empirical evidence relevant to the review objectives. Studies primarily addressing disaster induced or refugee displacement were not treated as equivalent to planned development-induced displacement and were considered only where they provided relevant contextual insights.

Following screening and eligibility assessment, 94 studies were retained for the final synthesis. Because the review was conducted by a single author and detailed screening logs were not retained for all intermediate stages, the numerical distribution of the 482 excluded records between title/abstract screening and full-text assessment could not be reliably reconstructed retrospectively. These intermediate counts are therefore not reported. Screening and eligibility assessment were undertaken by the author using the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria; consequently, inter-reviewer disagreement resolution was not applicable. Search themes and the corresponding records retrieved are presented in Table 1.

The literature retrieved for this review was categorized according to thematic relevance to the study’s four objectives; displacement effects on livelihood capitals, food security, and compensation effects on adaptation strategies, and support services available to displaced households. The descriptive variables extracted from the identified papers included the type of displacement addressed, the specific livelihood capitals examined, the level at which food security was assessed, the compensation type considered, and the nature of post-displacement support services documented.

Within the livelihood capitals theme, studies were distinguished between those examining all five capitals collectively and those focusing on individual capitals. For instance, some papers assessed changes across the full asset spectrum (social, human, natural, physical, and financial), while others concentrated on specific dimensions such as natural capital (land access, soil fertility) [13], human capital (skills, education, and training) [11], or social capital (group membership, trust, and networks) [6].

Food security-related studies were categorised by assessment level. Household-level analyses assessed food access and consumption at the household level [24], while individual-level nutritional assessments examined outcomes such as women’s and children’s dietary diversity [25][26]. This distinction is important because household-level food-security measures may not fully capture differences in dietary quality and nutritional vulnerability among individual household members.

The literature on compensation effects was classified into two main categories: resettlement schemes and cash compensation. Resettlement schemes generally involved the provision of replacement land, housing and associated infrastructure, while cash compensation provided affected households with monetary resources to manage their own relocation and livelihood recovery [23]. Each category was assessed in relation to its influence on post-displacement livelihood adaptation, including continued engagement in farming and the adoption of alternative income-generating activities in response to changing access to livelihood assets and resources [10].

In terms of support services, the review distinguished between institutional and community-level assistance. Institutional support encompassed formal interventions aimed at facilitating livelihood recovery, including financial assistance, skills development, livelihood-restoration programs and other forms of post-resettlement support [21]. Community-level support comprised informal mechanisms embedded within affected communities, including social networks, mutual assistance and locally organized forms of livelihood support. Studies were further categorised according to whether support interventions specifically targeted displaced households or formed part of broader services available to the wider population. This distinction enabled the review to assess how the accessibility, targeting and continuity of support services influenced post-displacement livelihood recovery [22].

Finally, all identified studies were tagged by country and region, enabling aggregation for comparative analysis. This geographic classification allowed the synthesis to highlight both Uganda-specific dynamics and broader Sub-Saharan African patterns, revealing where the Ugandan oil and gas displacement context aligns with or diverges from regional trends.

Studies were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: Published between 2011 and 2025. Focused on Sub-Saharan Africa, with priority to Uganda and comparable contexts in the Global South, addressed at least one of the thematic areas, livelihood capitals, food security, compensation effects on adaptation strategies, or support services post-displacement. Focused on development-induced displacement (oil and gas, infrastructure, mining, dam projects), with occasional inclusion of disaster-induced displacement and refugee displacements for comparative insights, studies and empirical studies (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods) and policy reports with clear methodology. Papers without clear methodology outlines and clear presentation of results under the various domains of induced displacements were also excluded, opinion pieces without empirical evidence, studies outside the set timeframe. Findings were synthesized thematically, following the four main objectives of the study. This allowed integration of results across diverse contexts, while noting similarities and differences between resettled and cash-compensated households.

The final synthesis included 94 studies. Study classification across the thematic areas was not mutually exclusive because an individual study could report findings on more than one aspect of livelihood recovery. For example, the same study could contribute evidence on livelihood capitals, compensation and adaptation strategies, food security, and support services. Similarly, studies addressing livelihood capitals could contribute to more than one capital where relevant. Consequently, theme- and capital-specific counts and percentages represent the studies contributing evidence to each respective domain and should not be summed to obtain the overall sample of 94 studies. Percentages within each domain were calculated using the number of studies addressing that specific domain as the denominator, unless otherwise stated.

Methodological quality was assessed for the empirical studies for which sufficient methodological information was available using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), 2018 version, as presented in Table 2. The MMAT was selected because the review incorporated qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods evidence. Each empirical study was first assessed using the two MMAT screening questions: whether the study presented clear research questions and whether the data collected were adequate to address those questions. Studies that satisfied the screening questions were subsequently assessed using the five criteria corresponding to their methodological design.

Table 2. MMAT appraisal of empirical studies with sufficient methodological information.

Each criterion was rated as “Yes”, “No” or “Can’t tell”. A rating of “Can’t tell” was assigned where the methodological information reported in the study was insufficient to make a defensible judgement. Consistent with MMAT guidance, the criterion-level ratings were not converted into an overall numerical quality score. Instead, the methodological strengths and limitations identified through the appraisal were considered when interpreting findings across the review.

The appraisal indicated that the empirical evidence was generally supported by clearly stated research objectives, appropriate data-collection approaches and analyses that were broadly consistent with the respective study designs. The qualitative studies generally demonstrated coherence between the research questions, data sources, data-collection procedures and interpretation of findings. Quantitative evidence generally employed appropriate measures and analytical procedures, although limitations relating to representativeness, reliance on self-reported information and cross-sectional designs were evident in some studies. Mixed-methods studies benefited from combining household surveys with interviews, focus group discussions and other qualitative evidence; however, some studies provided insufficient information on the treatment of divergences between quantitative and qualitative findings or on the methodological quality of the individual components. In such cases, the relevant criteria were rated as “Can’t tell” rather than assuming methodological adequacy.

Methodological quality was considered during the narrative synthesis. Greater interpretive weight was placed on findings from studies with clearly reported sampling procedures, appropriate measurement or qualitative data-collection approaches, transparent analytical procedures and convergence across multiple sources of evidence. Findings from studies with incomplete methodological reporting or important design limitations were interpreted more cautiously. Reviews, conceptual papers, theoretical sources and policy or background documents without primary empirical data were not subjected to MMAT appraisal, although they were retained where appropriate to provide contextual or conceptual information.

As shown in Table 2, Y = Yes, N = No, and CT = can’t tell. S1 assesses whether there are clear research questions, while S2 assesses whether the collected data allow the research questions to be addressed. C1 - C5 represent the five design-specific MMAT criteria and were interpreted according to the applicable qualitative, quantitative descriptive, or mixed-methods category.

The appraisal was used to inform interpretation rather than as a basis for excluding studies solely on methodological quality. Findings that were consistently supported across methodologically well-described studies were given greater emphasis in the synthesis. Where evidence originated from studies with incomplete reporting, restricted samples, self-reported measures or limited integration of mixed-methods components, conclusions were interpreted more cautiously and considered alongside findings from other studies. This approach enabled the review to retain relevant evidence from diverse study designs while recognizing differences in methodological rigour.

The MMAT appraisal indicated generally adequate methodological quality among the empirical studies assessed. Qualitative studies showed good alignment between research questions, data-collection approaches and interpretation of findings, while quantitative evidence generally employed appropriate sampling, measurement and analytical procedures. Mixed-methods studies demonstrated useful integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence, although reporting on the handling of divergent findings and the methodological quality of individual components was incomplete in some studies. These limitations were considered during the synthesis, and findings from studies with incomplete methodological reporting were interpreted cautiously.

The systematic review covered 94 eligible studies published between 2011 and 2025. The vast majority (88%) were conducted in developing countries, with 72% focusing specifically on Sub-Saharan Africa. Within this, 34% were from East Africa (Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia), 18% from West Africa (Nigeria, Ghana and Senegal), 10% from Southern Africa (Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia), and 10% from Central Africa (DR Congo and Cameroon). Studies outside Africa (12%) were mainly from South and Southeast Asia, providing comparative perspectives.

Across the included studies, 40.4% were qualitative (38/94), 30.9% quantitative (29/94), and 28.7% mixed-methods (27/94). Qualitative studies commonly used interviews, focus group discussions and key informant interviews to examine displacement experiences and livelihood changes. Quantitative studies primarily employed household surveys and statistical analyses, while mixed-methods studies combined quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine measurable outcomes alongside household and community experiences.

Figure 1Figure 1 presents the distribution of the included studies by year of publication. Largely, the evidence base expanded during the review period, reflecting growing scholarly attention to development-induced displacement, livelihood recovery and related outcomes.

Figure 1. Trend of publications on DID, compensation, and livelihood adaptation (2015-2025).

Across the five livelihood capitals, the data revealed a consistent predominance of negative changes in the aftermath of development-induced displacement (DID), particularly in Natural capital and Social capital (Figure 2Figure 2).

Figure 2. Showing changes in livelihood capitals after displacements.

For Social capital, 60% of studies reported declines mainly due to the erosion of traditional networks while only 28% observed positive shifts, often where NGO or extension engagement fostered new “bridging” ties; 12% reported mixed or neutral effects. Natural capital had the most severe decline, with 72% of studies documenting losses linked to reduced land size or degraded fertility, compared to just 22% noting gains, typically through secure tenure and irrigation schemes.

Human capital changes were also more negative than positive: 50% of studies documented declines (such as skill erosion and reduced access to training) while 34% recorded improvements, largely where structured training and extension programmes were implemented; 16% reported mixed outcomes. Physical capital displayed a more balanced profile, with 45% of studies showing positive change (mainly improved housing in planned resettlements), 40% reporting deterioration (due to absent or poorly maintained infrastructure), and 15% observing mixed effects. Financial capital outcomes were negative in 59% of cases, often where cash injections were short-lived without credit access or investment guidance; 31% reported positive gains, usually tied to microfinance or cooperative integration, and 10% noted mixed effects.

Regionally, the most severe negative changes were reported in West African dam and mining displacement cases (particularly for natural capital) while East African oil and infrastructure resettlement cases showed more frequent positive changes in physical capital and human capital, owing to better-integrated service delivery. However, in both regions, cash-compensated households consistently displayed higher rates of negative financial outcomes compared to resettled households, reflecting the absence of structured institutional support in most cash-based schemes.

These statistical patterns underline a central conclusion: while positive changes in some livelihood capitals are possible, especially with targeted institutional interventions, the prevailing trend in DID contexts (especially for natural, financial, and social capitals) remains negative. This suggests that compensation modality, geographic context, and post-displacement support services play decisive roles in shaping household recovery trajectories.

Sixteen studies explicitly examined the relationship between compensation type (cash or resettlement) and livelihood adaptation strategies across different contexts. Nine studies focused primarily on cash compensation, including cases from Uganda [3][23], Rwanda [6], and Uganda [11], while seven emphasized resettlement schemes in Uganda [2][27] and Ethiopia [28]. Most of these relied on primary household surveys, interviews and FGDs, while some studies complemented primary evidence with documentary or secondary sources [27].

In terms of conceptual frameworks, scholars applied the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) to analyse how displacement and compensation affected household livelihood assets and adaptive capacity [6][10]. For cash compensation, household adaptation involved a range of income-generating activities, including farming, petty trade and casual labour, although households differed considerably in their capacity to adapt [10]. Ogwang and Vanclay [3] showed that cash compensation did not necessarily translate into sustainable livelihood recovery, with some affected households experiencing continuing livelihood and food-security challenges. Conversely, Aboda et al. [2] and Aboda et al. [10] highlighted that formally resettled households generally had greater adaptive capacity than cash-compensated households, although access to land, infrastructure, markets and other livelihood resources continued to shape their post-resettlement adaptation.

The findings varied across cases. For instance, Mugagga et al. [23] observed that although alternative livelihood strategies were promoted among displaced households, some cash-compensated households experienced difficulties managing compensation and making sustainable long-term investments. Meanwhile, resettled households in Uganda demonstrated relatively greater adaptive capacity, although reduced access to productive assets, particularly land, constrained livelihood recovery [10]. Similarly, Aboda et al. [29] found that households’ adaptive capacity was influenced by their access to livelihood assets and income-generating activities, as well as socio-economic characteristics such as education.

Broadly, the findings converge on one point: compensation type was not merely a financial or material transfer but an important factor shaping household livelihood trajectories. Cash compensation provided households with greater flexibility in determining how compensation resources were used, but its capacity to support long-term livelihood recovery varied considerably. Resettlement, particularly where land, housing and infrastructure were provided, offered an alternative pathway for livelihood reconstruction, although outcomes depended on the quality of replacement assets and the effectiveness of post-resettlement support. As Vanclay [1] stresses, compensation alone is insufficient to restore livelihoods, and greater attention is required to the broader processes through which displaced households rebuild viable and sustainable livelihoods.

Twelve studies examined how DID shaped household food security outcomes. Six emphasized resettled populations in Uganda [2], Ethiopia [30], and Rwanda [6], while another six examined displacement and compensation-related livelihood and food-security outcomes in Uganda [3][23], Ethiopia [28], and Ethiopia [31]. Most of the studies used primary household surveys, interviews and FGD data, while a smaller number complemented primary evidence with documentary and secondary sources [28].

Analytical frameworks varied. Alam et al. [24] and Jima et al. [31] employed household-level food security measures, with the former developing a Food Security Index (FSI) and the latter applying the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) and Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS). Ogwang and Vanclay [3] assessed food-security impacts in relation to changes in access to land and livelihood resources following oil-development-related land acquisition. Some scholars framed food security more broadly within a livelihoods perspective, linking outcomes to changes in access to land, labour and other livelihood assets [2]. These differences in measurement approaches partly explain the variation in reported findings.

Results diverged across compensation types. Resettled households often experienced food-security challenges following relocation, although longer-term outcomes varied according to access to productive land and other livelihood resources. For example, Jima et al. [31] found that development associated with hydropower dams in Ethiopia adversely affected household food security and dietary diversity, particularly where access to productive resources was disrupted. In contrast, cash-compensated households experienced varying livelihood and food-security outcomes. Ogwang and Vanclay [3] found that land acquisition and displacement associated with oil development in Uganda disrupted access to land and livelihood resources, contributing to food-security concerns, while difficulties in converting compensation into sustainable livelihood activities increased households’ vulnerability to longer-term livelihood insecurity [29].

The reviewed studies converge on the finding that food-security outcomes under DID are highly context-dependent and shaped by the form of compensation and households’ access to livelihood resources. Resettlement may support livelihood and food-security recovery where affected households retain access to productive land and adequate post-resettlement support, whereas the outcomes of cash compensation depend considerably on households’ capacity to convert monetary compensation into sustainable livelihood assets and income-generating activities. These findings highlight the importance of compensation design and livelihood-restoration support in shaping longer-term food access and livelihood security, reinforcing calls for greater attention to the longer-term consequences of displacement and resettlement [1][13].

Ten studies examined the role of support systems and institutional interventions in shaping livelihood recovery after displacement. Four of these focused on resettled households in Uganda and Ghana [2][5][11][32], while six addressed compensation, institutional support and livelihood recovery among displaced households in Uganda, Ghana and other development-induced displacement contexts [5][23][33]. Most of these studies relied on primary household surveys, interviews and FGD data, while a smaller number integrated policy documents and other secondary sources.

In terms of conceptual tools, support services were framed either within livelihood-based approaches, where access to financial resources, skills development and other institutional services was viewed as contributing to households’ capacity to rebuild livelihood assets, or through institutional approaches that emphasized the importance of sustained post-resettlement assistance [21]. For instance, Downing et al. [22] emphasized the importance of continued post-relocation support in rebuilding viable livelihoods and social systems, while [29] highlighted education, livelihood assets and income-generating activities as important factors influencing households’ adaptive capacity following resettlement.

The results highlighted contrasts in access to support services across displacement and compensation contexts. Resettled households could benefit from structured post-relocation assistance where livelihood-restoration measures and institutional support were incorporated into resettlement programs [22]. In Ethiopia, Wayessa and Nygren [34] found that access to key livelihood resources, including farmland and irrigation, significantly shaped households’ capacity to rebuild agricultural livelihoods following resettlement. By contrast, cash-compensated households were often more dependent on their own capacity to rebuild disrupted livelihood and social-support systems. Mugagga et al. [23] found shortcomings in the institutional management of compensation packages and disruptions to social networks, including savings groups and credit-related support, which constrained livelihood restoration among displaced households.

The literature converges on the finding that institutional support plays an important role in strengthening livelihood recovery among displaced households. Where livelihood assistance, skills development, financial support and access to productive resources were sustained, households were better positioned to rebuild their livelihoods following displacement. Conversely, gaps in service delivery and post-resettlement assistance increased the risk of continued livelihood vulnerability. Chen et al. [21] emphasized the importance of sustained post-resettlement support that extends beyond initial compensation and relocation to facilitate longer-term livelihood reconstruction. Collectively, these findings underscore the importance of embedding long-term institutional and livelihood-restoration support into compensation and resettlement programs to bridge the gap between immediate compensation and sustainable livelihood recovery.

The review shows that displacement did not affect all livelihood capitals in the same way. Natural and financial capital were particularly vulnerable. Loss of land, smaller plots and declining land quality reduced the productive base on which many rural households depended. Financial recovery was also difficult to sustain where compensation was not accompanied by opportunities for investment, access to credit or support to establish alternative livelihoods. This is consistent with studies showing that replacing lost assets alone may not be enough to restore livelihoods unless households are also able to rebuild their productive capacity [1][6].

Social capital was also affected where relocation separated households from established networks and informal sources of support. Human and physical capital, however, showed a more mixed picture. Some households gained better housing, infrastructure, training or access to extension services. These improvements were more apparent where compensation and resettlement involved a wider package of support, such as housing, land, training or services. Even then, better housing or infrastructure did not necessarily mean that livelihoods had fully recovered, particularly where households had lost productive land, income sources or social networks. This reflects the Sustainable Livelihoods perspective that the different capitals are closely connected and that gains in one area may not compensate for losses in another.

The findings therefore suggest that recovery cannot be explained simply by whether a household received cash compensation or was resettled. In practice, compensation arrangements often combined cash with land, housing, transitional assistance, training, credit or access to services. What appears to matter is the adequacy of the overall package and whether it enables households to rebuild productive livelihoods over time. This supports Van clay’s [1] view of livelihood restoration as a broader process that goes beyond compensation alone. Evidence from dams, mining and other infrastructure projects provides useful comparison, but should be interpreted with care because these settings may differ from oil- and gas-related displacement in the way land acquisition, compensation and resettlement are organized.

The reviewed studies suggest that post-displacement livelihood adaptation was shaped by more than the type of compensation households received. Cash compensation provided households with greater flexibility in deciding how to rebuild their livelihoods, including pursuing alternative income-generating activities. Changes in the wider oil-development environment also contributed to shifts in livelihood activities, with households moving away from some traditional activities such as crop farming, livestock production and fishing towards trade and casual employment [35]. However, the sustainability of these strategies depended on households’ capacity to manage compensation resources and their access to markets, livelihood opportunities and other forms of support [3][23]. Similarly, the provision of land and housing created opportunities for displaced households to re-establish land-based livelihoods, but resettlement did not automatically result in livelihood recovery.

An important point emerging from the review is that compensation arrangements were often broader than a simple choice between cash and resettlement. Households could receive different combinations of cash, land-for-land, housing, transitional assistance and livelihood-restoration support. Training and other forms of post-resettlement assistance, for example, could strengthen households’ capacity to develop skills and rebuild livelihood activities after displacement [21]. This suggests that adaptation is shaped not simply by what households receive as compensation, but also by whether the wider support package enables them to rebuild productive activities and sustain their livelihoods over time.

These findings support Vanclay’s [1] argument that livelihood restoration needs to extend beyond the replacement of lost assets. Cash compensation may provide households with flexibility, while land-based compensation may enable the continuation of agricultural production; however, neither approach guarantees sustainable livelihood recovery on its own. The evidence therefore points to the design, adequacy and implementation of the overall compensation and livelihood-restoration package as important factors shaping how households adapt and rebuild their livelihoods after displacement.

Food security emerged as an important concern following displacement, although experiences varied considerably across households and project settings. Where households lost agricultural land or experienced disruptions in production, food insecurity became more pronounced, particularly among households whose livelihoods depended heavily on agriculture. Recovery was more likely where households regained access to productive land and other resources necessary to rebuild agricultural livelihoods [2][31][34]. This suggests that restoring food security after displacement is closely tied to the recovery of productive livelihoods rather than compensation alone.

The evidence on households receiving cash compensation also showed varied outcomes. Some households were able to use compensation to meet immediate needs or pursue alternative livelihood activities, while others experienced greater vulnerability where compensation did not translate into sustainable sources of income and livelihood security [3][23][29]. These differences should not, however, be interpreted as a simple contrast between cash compensation and resettlement. Compensation packages often included different combinations of cash, land, housing and livelihood support. Food-security outcomes therefore appear to depend not only on the form of compensation received, but also on households’ access to productive resources, livelihood opportunities and the support available during livelihood reconstruction.

The studies suggest that secure access to productive land and sustained livelihood support are important for rebuilding food security after displacement. This supports the wider argument that compensation should be accompanied by measures that help households restore production and income over time [1]. Differences in the food-security measures used across the reviewed studies should also be considered when interpreting these findings, as studies assessed food access and dietary outcomes in different ways.

Support services emerged as an important part of livelihood recovery after displacement. Access to appropriate institutional support and productive resources can strengthen households’ capacity to rebuild livelihood activities and adjust to post-displacement conditions [36]. Such support can help households make better use of the assets and opportunities available after displacement, rather than leaving them to rebuild their livelihoods with limited guidance and resources.

The findings also show why support should not be viewed simply as a feature of resettlement rather than cash compensation. In practice, households may receive different combinations of cash, land, housing and complementary forms of assistance. The effectiveness of these arrangements depends not only on the assets provided, but also on whether households can draw on financial and social resources that enable them to rebuild their livelihoods after displacement [23]. Where such support is limited, livelihood reconstruction may become more difficult and uneven. This suggests that differences in recovery may partly reflect the wider support available to displaced households, rather than compensation modality alone.

The evidence points to the need for support to continue beyond the initial compensation or relocation period. Continued access to livelihood support, skills development and other productive resources can help households translate compensation and replacement assets into more sustainable livelihoods. As Vanclay [1] argues, livelihood restoration requires attention beyond the replacement of lost assets to the wider conditions necessary for affected households to rebuild their lives. Support services should therefore form an integral part of livelihood-restoration packages, whether compensation involves cash, land, housing or a combination of these arrangements.