Following disaster, many governments attempt to reduce future risk by moving exposed and vulnerable populations. This dissertation focuses on post-disaster mass relocation, specifically the decisions and outcomes succeeding the call for compulsory relocation of entire communities to previously undeveloped, often considerably distant, tracts of land. Past studies of relocation have sufficiently commented on failings – sites are often far removed from employment opportunities, extended families and neighbors may be separated, and both housing quality and infrastructure services may be poor – but have not provided insight into their precursory, causal, processes. This study addresses this gap by comparing and connecting implementation and outcomes across thirteen relocated communities in the Philippines, following Typhoon Haiyan in 2013. The investigation of implementation began with the characterization of its overarching institutional environment and the regulatory, normative, and cultural-cognitive constraints bounding decision making. Next, implementation was compared to intent, as detailed in Haiyan-specific policy documents, which revealed concerning discrepancies between relocation as-envisioned and in-actuality. Civil infrastructure services in particular, such as water supply, were woefully under-considered and underfunded in policy. In the examination of outcomes at relocation communities, most all were removed from the hazard that motivated relocation – storm surge – but newly exposed to a different hazard, flooding. Finally, the study explored what project conditions theorized to contribute to successful and livable relocation communities combined to promote an adequate built and societal environment. Results challenged conventional assumptions about the preferred pace and scale of relocation projects and how to best manage the transfer of relocation beneficiaries.