https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4572-602X
Figures
Abstract
Coastal communities across the Pacific are increasingly recognized as places of priority for climate adaptation. Pacific Island communities are developing and using strategies to adapt their lives and livelihoods to climatic and environmental risks. Highlighting the case study of Nagigi village, Fiji, we identify adaptation responses to multiple environmental and socio-economic pressures including changing social structures, food insecurity, coastal erosion, and extreme weather events. Through a decolonised qualitative methodology, and building on conceptual frameworks of adaptative capacity, we examine six dimensions that shape local adaptive capacity in Nagigi: local assets and resources; experiential and communicated knowledge of socioecological change; social organization; agency and capacity to act, including among women; diversity of adaptation options; and Pacific worldviews and values including communal values, commitment to Vanua, and stewardship of local resources. This paper offers insights into how community members understand and respond to multiple pressures, highlighting key dimensions of adaptive capacity. It challenges discourses that focus excessively on the vulnerability of Pacific Islanders by highlighting local adaptation to changing socio-ecological and climatic circumstances.
Citation: McMichael C, Yee M, Cornish G, Lutu A, McNamara KE (2025) Adaptive capacity in Pacific Islands: Responding to coastal and climatic change in Nagigi village, Fiji. PLOS Clim 4(7): e0000504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000504
Editor: Laura Kuhl, Northeastern University, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Received: October 16, 2024; Accepted: June 9, 2025; Published: July 23, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 McMichael et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: We are unable to upload our dataset due to human research ethics restrictions; these restrictions indicate that interview transcripts/data will only be viewed by named members of the research team. The Plain Language Form and Consent Forms did not seek participants' consent to enter data into a databank. The Plain Language Statement states that access to data is restricted to members of the research team. The consent form states 'my information will be stored securely and accessible only by the named researchers'. The ethics application explicitly states that 'Data will be accessible only by the named researchers.' The Human Ethics Committee of the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity at The University of Melbourne approved the project (Ethics ID: 1851729). Contact details: Office of Research Ethics and Integrity Level 5, Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry St The University of Melbourne, VIC, AUSTRALIA 3010.
Funding: This work was supported by funding from the Australian Research Council (project ID: DP190100604) ($445,000 AUD to CM and KM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Coastal communities and ecosystems are exposed to multiple climate change threats. These include sea-level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, changes in the intensity of rainfall events and cyclones, saltwater intrusion of freshwater resources, coral reef bleaching, ocean acidification, increasing water and surface air temperatures, and reduced productivity of local fisheries and agriculture [1,2]. There is a pressing need for adaptation that can reduce the adverse effects of climate change-related exposures and risks [3–5]. These adaptation needs are increasingly pressing in communities that depend on oceans and coastal ecosystems, including in lower-income countries.
Adaptation can occur where there is adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity is defined as the ability of social and socioecological systems to adapt to change [6–8]. Adaptive capacity is shaped by the conditions, processes and social networks that enable people to anticipate climate risks, minimise adverse impacts, recover, and take advantage of opportunities [9]. It depends on the vulnerabilities and strengths, local contexts, decision-making processes and development pathways of people and communities [10]. There is limited empirical evidence about adaptation and adaptive capacity related to ocean and coastal ecosystems, especially in low-income countries and regions [10].
In this paper we examine adaptive capacity in the coastal community of Nagigi village and surrounding settlements, specifically Bia-I-Cake settlement, in Fiji. The paper has a particular focus on local knowledge as well as women’s perspectives on adaptation initiatives and their adaptive capacities [11,12]. In Nagigi village and surrounding settlements, residents are experiencing and responding to challenges - including food insecurity, management of local marine resources, and retreat of households from sites of coastal risk – that are linked to climate- and environment-related threats, with these threats intersecting with and amplified by sociopolitical and economic stressors. In the sections that follow, we introduce the case study of Nagigi village and outline the research methods. The findings consider the ways in which residents adapt to local threats to food security, marine resources, and habitability of low-lying coastal sites. Analysis is organized with reference to six dimensions that shape adaptive capacity: assets and resource distribution; experiential learning about environmental and climatic change; social organisation; agency; flexible adaptation options; and Pacific worldviews and values. Finally, the discussion and conclusion highlight the value of in-depth analysis and understanding of adaptive capacity for climate-affected communities, households and individuals, including in Small Island States [3,7].
Literature review: Adaptive capacity in the Pacific Islands
The Pacific Islands Region is often characterized by high climate change vulnerability with adverse impacts for ecosystems, livelihoods, food production and human health, and with island communities positioned as ‘victims’ of climate change [5,6,11,13,14]. Pacific Island peoples have been adapting to environmental changes for millennia [15], and Pacific Island communities now continue to develop and use strategies to adapt their lives and livelihoods to current environmental and climatic changes and associated risks. Indeed, community-led adaptation initiatives that use local capacities and resources are both a ‘choice’ and a necessity, given that – to date - limited global climate finance has been available and used in ways that contribute to adaptation in the region [16,17]. Community-led adaptation in the Pacific Islands includes marine resources protection, prevention of land-loss, relocation, food and water security enhancement, livelihood diversification, migration and mobility, and climate awareness-raising [18].
For example, in response to coastal flooding and saltwater intrusion, women in Palau are growing salt-tolerant crops and farming in less climate-vulnerable areas [11]. In the interior village of Nawairuku, Fiji, adaptation strategies include relocation of farm plots and housing away from flood- and landslide-prone areas, supporting vulnerable residents during times of stress (e.g., after Tropical Cyclone Winston), livelihood diversification, and resilient building design [6]. A study of water stress in Kiribati underscored the role of past experiences and management of water stress in determining adaptation actions (e.g., purchase of rainwater tanks, construction of wells, household relocation) [19]. A study in Northern Pentecost in Vanuatu documented use of Indigenous and local knowledge to forecast weather, plant disaster-resilient crops, and construct tropical cyclone shelters [20]. In Namdrik Atoll in the Marshall Islands, a community-designed plan has sought to address development, conservation and adaptation imperatives through sustainable use of marine and terrestrial resources, solid waste and water lens management, a pearl farm, and coastal protection (e.g., replanting with native species) [21]. Several studies have demonstrated that Pacific Island communities adjust subsistence farming practices, often using Indigenous and local knowledge, to increase resilience to climate variability and extreme weather [15,20,22,23]. And a growing number of studies identify the ways Pacific Island communities engage in (im)mobility to adapt to climate-related risks [24].
While documenting examples of adaptation initiatives and actions in the Pacific Islands, some of this empirical research also underscores key dimensions of adaptive capacity. It highlights the diverse ways in which adaptation actions are enabled or constrained by local resources, gender roles, social networks, knowledge and information including Indigenous and local knowledge, perceptions of risk, and multi-scalar interactions from the local to the institutional level [19,20,23,25]. Adaptive capacity itself is necessary but insufficient to guarantee that adaptation takes place [26].
Key dimensions of adaptive capacity are far from settled [7]. What are the factors that enable communities to undertake adaptation initiatives? Adaptive capacity is increased where people and populations have available resources, such as financial and social capital, and ability to access and use these resources for adaptation action [1,27]. There are also constraints to adaptive capacity that might include information deficits around the consequences of climate change and available adaptation options, inadequate political will and institutional capacity to undertake adaptation, limited financial resources, and inequitable distribution of benefits of adaptation initiatives [28–32]. There is no universal agreement on the enabling and constraining factors that determine adaptive capacity, nor any clear basis on which to compare adaptive capacity across communities and societies. Efforts to advance understanding of adaptative capacity, regardless of its spatial scale, are a priority area for research [33].
Adaptive capacity frameworks of relevance to Pacific Islands highlight key dimensions including: access to assets and resources; knowledge and experience of climate change risks; social organisation and ability to cooperate and act collectively; availability of adaptation strategies; and agency to implement adaptive actions [1,8]. The Pacific Adaptive Capacity Analysis Framework (PACAF) specifically highlights the centrality of Pacific worldviews and values for informing and determining adaptation outcomes [8]. Key dimensions of these frameworks [1,8], and research-based insights into Pacific Island adaptive capacity, are summarized in Table 1.
People do not adapt to climate impacts in isolation from other processes. For example, climate impacts degrade coastal ecosystems in intersection with marine pollution, habitat degradation, overuse of resources (e.g., overfishing), introduction of non-indigenous species, and unsustainable development and mining [34]. Individuals, households and communities adapt to multiple stressors – environmental, social, economic, and political conditions – that alter, amplify, or mitigate the impacts of climate change [35,36]. This is the case in Nagigi village, where challenges such as food insecurity and degradation of local marine resources are linked to climate- and environment-related threats as well as broader sociopolitical and economic factors. Residents respond to climatic and environmental impacts and concurrent stressors as part of broader efforts to live well.
Study site and methods
Study site: Nagigi village and Bia-I-Cake settlement
This paper focuses on Nagigi village and Bia-I-Cake settlement. Nagigi village is a small fishing community located on Savusavu Bay in Cakaudrove Province on Vanua Levu, the second largest island of Fiji (see Figs 1 and 2). It has a population of around 630 people iTaukei Fijian, comprising of 126 households. There are also six smaller settlements outside the main village boundary: Bia-I-Cake, Vunikoko, Wailailai, Bia-I-Loma, Waitunutunu and Dewala. Bia-I-Cake settlement is closest to Nagigi village. Bia-I-Cake settlement has a population of around 60 people across 12 households (excluding those that live elsewhere in Fiji and overseas). In Nagigi village, there are two churches (Methodist and Seventh Day Adventist), one meeting hall, one water tank with connected water-piping system, one primary school (Naleba Primary School), and electricity supplied from Savusavu town. In the village and settlements, all homes are made from tin or iron and timber and have piped water and sanitation facilities. The village and settlements are on sloped terrain, with several houses located in low-lying coastal sites and most set back from the coastline or on the hillside. Nagigi village and surrounding settlements are characteristic of tropical coastal and island communities that rely on fishing and marine resources for livelihoods and food security, many of which are vulnerable to climate impacts including sea-level rise, inundation and erosion, and disruptions to reef ecosystems and small-scale fisheries [37].
Base maps digitized from OpenStreetMap (OSM).
Base maps digitized from United Nations Geospatial data.
Methods
Qualitative data collection, using culturally-appropriate methods, took place in Nagigi and Bia-I-Cake settlement during October-November 2021 (two researchers) and March 2023 (three researchers). Bia-I-Cake settlement was specifically included because the Bia-I-Cake Women’s Club (https://biaicakewomenscooperative.com/) received a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Global Environment Facility Small Grant including for an aquaculture project.
The field-based research team included one Anglo-Australian researcher (author CM) and two iTaukei Fijian researchers (authors MY and AL). The iTaukei researchers (MY, AL) worked closely with local leaders and community members to organise and support fieldwork, ensuring community involvement and establishing good relationships with residents. CM and MY collaborated on the design of research tools; all authors contributed to theoretical and empirical analysis.
Researchers in the Pacific increasingly use decolonising research methods that are sensitive to local language, knowledge, practices and understanding [38–40]. Such methods were employed in this study, in which qualitative data collection included talanoa group discussions and interviews and observations. These methods align with sociocultural norms in iTaukei communities in Fiji and enable culturally appropriate discussion and storytelling. Specifically, group and individual interviews were conducted as Talanoa, a Pacific Island practice of face-to-face dialogue and exchange of ideas and emotions that allows the storyteller to structure the conversation and that fosters respect, trust and understanding [38,40]. We recognise that our positions and identities shaped the research process.
Informed by adaptive capacity frameworks as discussed above [1,8], the research sought to identify the factors that support or constrain adaptation in Nagigi village, with focus on local and Indigenous knowledge and women’s perspectives on adaptation [11,12]. A theme list was used to guide talanoa, while also allowing people to orient discussions around topics of interest to them. Guiding themes included: background information (e.g., age, gender, household composition, length of residence in village, livelihoods); assets and resources; local knowledge and experiences of disaster and climate- and environmental change; climate change adaptation strategies including both in situ adaptation and migration/retreat; social organization; agency including the successes and challenges of women-led village projects; worldviews and values; and perceptions of the future.
Data collection included 56 participants (see Table 2), noting that several people participated at both time-points (i.e., 2021 and 2023). All participants were iTaukei Fijian and – through a purposive sampling approach - included different ages (18–88 years), genders, and social status (e.g., community leaders, elders, younger people, members of community-based clubs). Six group talanoa were conducted: two with men, one with youth (aged 18–37 years), and three with women. Fifteen individual talanoa were conducted: eight in 2021 (5 women; 3 men), and seven in 2023 (3 women; 4 men).
Talanoa discussions and interviews were conducted in English or in local languages and dialects and conducted in people’s homes and communal spaces in the village and surrounding settlements. They lasted approximately 1 to 1.5 hours and were digitally recorded and later transcribed. Data were analysed thematically (wave 1: GC, MY; wave 2: CM, MY) based on pre-determined themes (i.e., see Table 1) around climate and environmental change and adaptive capacity (asset and resources; experiential and communicated knowledge; social organization; agency; adaptation options; worldviews and values) as well themes that emerged inductively from the data.
This research and analysis has limitations; three are noted here. First, it reports on adaptive capacity and the ‘localness of adaptation’ in Nagigi village which makes it difficult to generalise features and contexts that support effective adaptation [28]. Second, while community-led adaptation is promoted as an effective and appropriate response to climatic risks, adaptive capacity – e.g., access to resources and capacity to act - is shaped by multiscalar processes and inequities including histories of colonisation, access to global climate finance, multilevel governance processes, and availability of material, technological and institutional resources [21]. The focus on community-led adaptation in Nagigi obscures these macro determinants of adaptive capacity [31]. Third, the outcomes and effectiveness of adaptation are not measured or reported, for example in terms of economic benefits, health and wellbeing, vulnerability reduction, good governance, social equity and justice, and transformative challenges to power structures [41].
Ethics statement: The project received Human Research Ethics Approval by the University of Melbourne (Ethics ID: 1851729.1). Prior to talanoa discussions and interviews, all participants reviewed and discussed a plain language summary of the research with the researchers (CM, MY); they then provided verbal consent to participate to these researchers (which was digitally audio-recorded and/or manually noted on a consent form) as approved the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee. The Government of Fiji provided a research permit [42], and Cakaudrove Provincial government and Nagigi community leaders approved the research, following sevusevu (traditional kava presentation) and discussion of the proposed research.
Findings: Adaptive capacity in Nagigi village
The sections below focus on six dimensions that shape adaptive capacity: asset and resource distribution; experiential and communicated knowledge; social organization; agency; flexible adaptation options; and worldviews and values (see Table 1 above).
Assets and resource distribution
We love this village because it’s so close to the sea. The fish were in abundance and the crab were in abundance. But now we have to travel longer to go and find fish, and even the crabs are not as many as they used to be. (Woman, 2023)
Nagigi and surrounding settlements have access to diverse assets and resources including land and fishing areas under customary tenure, various income sources, and services and infrastructure. Most residents are farmers and fishers and derive incomes, livelihoods and food from ocean and land resources. Nagigi is also a tour site for neighboring resorts and visiting cruise ships to Savusavu (21km, by road, from Nagigi). There are two family-operated homestays. Several residents work in nearby hotels, resorts, estates and businesses in Savusavu. Many residents are mobile: seasonal workers travel to Labasa (85km, by road) and western Viti Levu (Fiji’s largest island) for sugarcane harvesting; some work in Vanua Levu (second largest island, where Nagigi is located) and Viti Levu, primarily in housing and road construction and tourism; some have worked on the ‘Survivor’ reality television series which has previously been filmed nearby; a few villagers work overseas in New Zealand, Australia, USA, UK and Europe. Many households receive remittances from family members. Some people who studied, lived and worked in other parts of Fiji or overseas have returned - permanently or periodically - to start small-scale businesses (e.g., kava, banana, cassava farming).
As with many Pacific Island communities, the ocean and small-scale fisheries are key to subsistence food security, livelihoods, culture and life [2,43,44]. As one man said, ‘I think the food security for the village is in the sea and the land’ (2021). Coastal fisheries in Nagigi are managed under governance arrangements that include customary tenure over nearby reefs and marine habitats. Residents explained that in the past ‘this place used to be very rich in all types of fish’ (man, 2023) and that ‘fishes were abundant and more than enough to sustain our daily needs’ (woman, 2021).
Residents are concerned about declining size, availability and diversity of fish and seafood both in the coastal reef and the lagoon surrounding their village. They explain, for example, that ‘we can’t find fish easily, not compared to previous times’ and that ‘some fish species we used to see before are no longer around’. Women in particular explained that the local totem fish (A fish of sociocultural significance which is associated with ancestral spirits and can have specific fertility significance [45].), deu, that used to appear in large quantities between November and December has declined: ‘we would be lucky to get five or ten fish nowadays’. Many expressed concern that they are unable to reliably provide food for their families because of declining fish availability:
Sometimes I just get so depressed and stressed when I return from fishing and it’s not enough for my family. I feel so down and so sad because I am thinking of my children. Sometimes I cry at night just thinking of what our food will be the next day. I am sure other women here go through the same thing. (Woman, 2021)
Nagigi village and surrounding settlements also have access to ancestral land that households use for small-scale commercial farming and subsistence crops (e.g., kava, cassava, taro, coconut, banana, some fruits and vegetables). People practice subsistence farming and fishing, sell excess resources for income, and farm crops for income (e.g., kava). In 2021, with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many residents returned to the village from alternative places of residence and work (e.g., Suva, Labasa) as border closures, curfews and lockdowns had severe economic impacts including loss of tourism income and unemployment [46]; returned residents assisted with farming, planting, and production of yaqona (kava) providing opportunity to strengthen farming for both subsistence and income. A few residents are concerned that the increase in commercial farming – particularly of kava – destroys native forests, degrades land, and disrupts watersheds.
So, with adaptive capacity shaped by the availability (or lack) of different forms of capital – including assets and resources – Nagigi village and surrounding settlements have important resources that can provide a foundation for adaptation: land and fishing areas under customary tenure, diverse income sources, and food security albeit with threats to food security under changing environmental and climate conditions.
Experiential and communicated knowledge
We see what’s happening. (Man, 2021)
They see when it’s high tide; sometimes the sea is coming further onto the land. So there’s a lot of sea intrusion into the plantations, flooding even on land where it never used to be, beach erosion. (Woman, 2023)
Nagigi and surrounding settlements experience climatic and environmental changes. Nagigi has experienced several cyclones in recent years; the most damaging was Tropical Cyclone (TC) Winston in February 2016. Coastal erosion, flooding, sea-level rise, extreme weather events and ecosystem changes are understood by residents as climate-related threats. Residents spoke about local observations and experiences of environmental and climatic changes including altered weather patterns, rainfall variability, higher sea levels, storm surges, coastal erosion, coral reef degradation, warmer ocean temperature, and increased frequency and severity of cyclones. They said, for example, that the ‘weather does not seem to be following its normal pattern’, ‘sea level rise inundating the land and eating away the shoreline’, ‘[cyclones] have become frequent’, and during ‘storm surges the waves just come so fast’. Many spoke with sadness of the erosion of their coastline, with one woman explaining that ‘this whole stretch of the village was beautiful, white sandy beaches and we had these long coconut trees’, but the coconut trees and beach have now been ‘washed away’.
Residents said these changes affect their daily lives and decision-making, explaining that climate change affects the ‘small things that we do, the choices that we make on a daily basis’ (man, 2021). For example, during one group talanoa women discussed how increasing ambient temperatures and warming seas mean they must fish further out near the reef:
The heat is so unbearable. So when we go out fishing.... we have to go further out where the water is cooler, deeper. Here it’s warmer towards the beach…and we have to walk further out, near the open reef where it’s cooler. (Woman, 2023)
Residents suggested the decline in fish and seafood (including the local totem fish deu) and reef damage was due in part to changing climatic and environmental conditions: altered weather, warming oceans, changing ocean currents, and coral bleaching. As one man said, ‘I think it’s because of the weather changing, climate change, and it’s affecting our ocean too’ (2023). But they also spoke of wider environmental pressures including deforestation, land excavation, modification of riverways during the construction of local highways, sand removal for construction of houses, damage to coral reefs by residents (including through the traditional practice of vutuguru – discussed below), and untreated wastewater and sewage flowing into the sea.
In sum, residents have experiential knowledge of socioecological changes – such as changing weather, coastal erosion, altered frequency of cyclones, declining fish stocks – which affect their lives and livelihoods and are a precursor to adaptation decision-making.
Social organisation
Our elders had the spirit of respect for each other and for traditional protocols, which nowadays is no longer there. And that’s why the leadership is a bit tattered; that’s touching every area of living of our community, the village. (Woman, 2023)
Nagigi village and surrounding settlements are organised into traditional social structures. In Nagigi, there are four mataqali (clans): Valelevu, Korolevu, Vuniyaro and Wailada. Residents of Bia-I-Cake settlement are from the mataqali Korolevu. There are three government representatives in the village: one Turaga-ni-koro (village headman) and two Nasi-ni-koro (village nurses). An iTaukei way of life is sustained, with households and clans sharing burdens, providing material assistance and support, and collaborating on initiatives. These social connections provide crucial support in times of need with, for example, mataqali members helping to repair damaged homes following TC Winston.
Yet residents note a decline in well-functioning social organization and leadership in recent years, citing loss of the ‘Vanua structure’ (i.e., hierarchical structure that organizes people based on land, territory, and community, and identity), erosion of tradition, lack of appointments to key traditional leadership roles, inappropriate transfer of authority to those in lower leadership positions, disregard for authority, and lack of respect for elders. One woman explained this makes it difficult to progress ideas and work together:
We have the head of the mataqalis, [but] the one who is supposed to be head of the vanua of the whole village is the Tui ni sa [traditional Chief of Nagigi], that title has not been filled yet... A lot of things try and move forward but can’t because there is no leader and the mataqalis are pushing their own agendas (2023)
While the Tui ni sa Nagigi (traditional Chief of Nagigi) is responsible for calling village meetings with all mataqali (clans), this role has been assigned to a Turaga ni Mataqali (given that the Tui ni sa Nagigi role is not filled) resulting in exclusion of some mataqalis. Residents reported that laws that maintain traditional village life and safeguard the Vanua are not sustained and respected. There is an appointed Turaga Ni Koro (village head), who is a government representative, but the lack of traditional leaders means ‘people will do whatever they want because no-one has the right authority to correct them’ (woman, 2021). Older residents expressed concern that ‘times have changed’ with youth reluctant to take on responsibilities (veibilibili), and life becoming less communal.
The central narrative is that traditional social structures continue to provide crucial support during times of environmental crisis. Yet with the erosion of both traditions and the Vanua structure, it is considered increasingly difficult to respond to pressing local needs including those linked to environmental and climate risks.
Agency
We asked what if we women had our own income generating project, just with our clan. Perhaps this could help with the things needed... in our settlement, Mataqali and in our very own households and families. (Woman, 2021)
Despite accounts of declining traditional structures and communal organisation, in Nagigi and surrounding settlements new forms of agency are emerging to respond to environmental and socioeconomic challenges. Here, we highlight the agency of women in development and adaptation initiatives. These are notable initiatives to highlight, particularly given the very limited examination of gender as a social dimension of adaptation [47].
The Bia-I-Cake Women’s Club comprises 16 women and focuses on land and marine ecosystem management, climate change and disaster, and sustainable livelihoods. The club formed in 2020 to work on small communal projects – solesolevaki – such as weaving mats, that could provide income for their households and clan. More recently the club has addressed broader challenges of food security and income generation from fishing and farming under changing environmental and climatic conditions. As one woman said, ‘the change in climate and the decline in resources made it harder to sustain a living’.
In October 2020, the Bia-I-Cake Women’s Club was one of ten recipients of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme in Fiji. Funding was provided for two projects: (i) an aquaculture project (three fish ponds for tilapia, carp, prawn) (see Fig 3); and (ii) a coconut project (to produce flour, coir, meal mix, virgin coconut oil, desiccated coconut). Women received training on finance, farm management (aquaculture), and coconut pre-processing. They also set up an initiative recycling plastic waste to make jewellery and decorations. These projects are managed and implemented by the Bia-I-Cake Women’s Club in collaboration with various organisations: e.g., government Ministries (Agriculture and Waterways; Fisheries; Women, Children and Social Protection), Soqosoqo Vakamarama Cakaudrove (not for profit organisation representing women of Fiji’s Cakaudrove Province), and Kava Korp (kava processing and distribution company).
Women explained that projects: leverage material, cultural and social resources; support entrepreneurship and financial independence; generate income for women and their families and community; enable development of skills; strengthen bonds within the clan; increase women’s voice and respect in the settlement and village; promote food security; and offer an adaptive response to a changing climate and other socioecological pressures:
We wanted to display our skills, we wanted to be financially independent and share our skills. We wanted to have food security as well. You know with the changing climate we have experienced, it’s not like before when we use to go fishing. (woman, 50, 2021)
While residents continue to engage in coastal fishery, the Bia-I-Cake women’s club is developing aquaculture as a new livelihood and economic opportunity, and a way to adapt to declining coastal fish stocks. Members take responsibility on a rotating basis for feeding fish, cleaning the pond, weeding, and maintaining infrastructure and water flow: ‘we want to make sure that there is proper water flow into the pond. Sometimes the pipes are broken so we have to mend or fix’ (woman, 2023). The first harvest of tilapia was carried out in October 2021 and shared among all 16 families in Bia-I-Cake settlement with money earned from sales saved in a group bank account. In 2023, women reported that sale of farmed fish (at markets and from the roadside, and promoted via live streaming on social media) is covering operational costs and providing income as well as offering food security:
The fishpond is going well. We had six harvests, sold six times now... Right now, the tilapia we sell at $7 per kilogram, prawns will be selling at about $18. I do live streaming... that’s where we get a lot of the sales. (Woman, 2023)
By 2023, the women’s group had registered as a cooperative and initiated further projects including: a reforestation project with the Ministry of Forestry, a factory to make coconut flour (i.e., with automated husking machines), training women on food handling, and projects to mitigate coastal erosion (e.g., planting mangroves, coastal protection using coconut tree trunks) with the Ministry of Agriculture.
Reportedly inspired by the success of the Bia-I-Cake Women’s club, the Nagigi Women’s Committee are planning a new Village Evacuation Centre, with the support of the organisation Seacology. At the December 2021 village meeting, the women’s committee proposed the new Evacuation Centre (also supported by the development committee) and the proposal was unanimously endorsed. The women of Nagigi have set up a project committee and delivered a presentation to the Turaga ni Vanua. A site has been earmarked and men tasked to undertake traditional protocols to request the land at the proposed site.
Diverse adaptation options
In addition to the efforts of the Bia-I-Cake Women’s Club and the Nagigi Women’s Committee, residents of Nagigi describe other ways they are adapting to environmental and climatic changes, including initiatives to manage marine resources, and relocation and retreat of houses from sites of coastal risk. These are indicative of adaptive capacity, as households and groups in Nagigi and surrounding settlements are able to use resources for adaptive actions [1].
First, there are village-wide efforts to manage and rejuvenate marine resources including through fish wardens, closure of fishing grounds, and plans to establish a locally-managed marine area. Certified local fish wardens, trained by the Ministry of Fisheries, inspect villagers’ catch: undersized or breeding fish are supposed to be thrown back to the ocean, a fine issued, and the responsible person reported to the Ministry of Fisheries. Further, some nearshore customary fishing grounds have been closed and fish stocks are reportedly beginning to rejuvenate, with a woman explaining that ‘as this ban is still in place, we can see these types of fish beginning to emerge once again’. And, in 2023, the Nagigi village committee was in discussions with the Provincial Council and a local non-government organisation to set up a locally-managed marine area (tabu) in which the community takes responsibility for management and monitoring of marine and fishing areas, building on customary tenure and fishing rights [48–50]. Residents hope that establishment of a tabu will deliver both ecological benefits (e.g., regeneration of corals, mangrove renewal, increased fish diversity and supply) and social benefits (e.g., increased tourism, marine resource knowledge and management, sustainable livelihoods). Members of the Bia-I-Cake women’s club explained that establishment of a tabu area with more ‘limited places for people to go fishing’ would increase the significance of the Bia-I-Cake aquaculture initiative as an alternative local food and income source.
Second, while marine resource management is a village-wide concern, some environmental risks – coastal erosion, flooding, destructive waves – are experienced specifically by households located close to the shore. Short-distance relocation and retreat has been undertaken by several households in response to ‘the intensity and regularity of these cyclones and inundation of the coastal areas’ (man, 2021), as their houses were damaged and even washed away. In particular, TC Winston led to significant damage of coastal properties: ‘the water literally picked up the house and put them on the road, and those were the ones who relocated’ (woman, 2023). After TC Winston, government representatives reportedly announced in a village meeting that houses near the sea should ‘relocate further inland’ as they would not assist them again with post-disaster rebuilding. Members of two households explained that relocation was ‘smooth’ because they had access to mataqali land, were able to move near to households that belonged to their mataqali and built new homes using local materials and government hurricane relief funding. Indeed, they explained that while they moved the physical location of their homes, this was not “relocation” as such because short distance moves allowed people and households to remain in a place of belonging:
Our relocation was smooth because we didn’t move to a new location, we just moved to our own land, our mataqali land. (2023)
We used our own material and old timber from the village and the government gave us hurricane relief assistance to rebuild the houses. (2023)
Some households required permission from other mataqali to negotiate land tenure for their relocation. As one man explained, ‘I had to prepare two tabua [whale tooth] and present this to the head of the mataqali’ (2021), with tabua representing a significant ceremonial gift that creates a sacred bond between parties. Others explained that it was ‘not an easy decision, to pull down your home and start all over again’, but they moved to ensure that their ‘children and grandchildren are safe and protected from the risks of climate’ (woman, 2021). Other households that sustained significant damage and were only able to rebuild in situ or retreat a few metres inland, within mataqali land, remain concerned about cyclone risk and considering relocation: ‘I think the only solution is to get away from there; relocation... I am always worried about the next cyclone’ (man, 2023). And older residents are encouraging their children to build new homes on higher ground, as a form of slow ‘generational retreat’.
Many people are reluctant to relocate to higher ground because they have lived in their family home for generations and enjoy being close to the sea. As one man explained:
leave us here. I think if I don’t smell or hear the ocean for one day I would be devastated. Living here also provides me with strength to persevere with life like how my ancestors did (2021).
Others are reluctant to relocate because their ancestral land is far from the village; ‘if we wanted to build a house it would be in the bush that belongs to our mataqali, Vuniyaro... We can’t just take our house down and build somewhere else’ (man, 2023). And some households are unable to relocate because they do not have available mataqali land or lack resources such as building materials and money. In 2021, one older widowed woman explained she fears ‘the big waves’, but lacks the land and resources needed to relocate and is reluctant to lose connection to the place she gave birth, lived with her husband and raised a family. She explained ‘there are so many good memories in this house, my husband’s memories too. It is a bit difficult to let go of that’.
Worldviews and values
I think we are very connected, stewardship, that’s always been a part of who we were and who we are. (Woman, 2023)
Pacific worldviews, values and knowledge are central to climate resilience and adaptation, and foundational to long histories of stewardship of ecosystems and responses to environmental change through mobility within and between islands, sharing of resources and diversified livelihoods [20,23]. Residents of Nagigi express the importance of sustained connections to place and Vanua. Some explained that that their umbilical cord was ‘thrown out in the sea’ or planted under a coconut tree following their birth, creating connection to place. Residents refer to stewardship of local ecosystems and resources, and responsibility to protect a place – ‘the land, the water and the fish that came with that’ - given to them by the Tui Cakau (Paramount Chief of Cakaudrove Province). They are worried about decline of long-held values, loss of social cohesion, and reduced stewardship, citing economic pressures and an individual focus on ‘making money’ rather than communal living, loss of traditions such as offering sevu at the church following first harvest, and loss of traditional knowledge ‘that our forefathers taught us’. Many women attributed the decline in deu to the loss of traditional fishing protocols and knowledge (‘the old women those days used to tell us how to traditionally catch this fish’).
Nonetheless, people acknowledged that iTaukei values and practices change over time: worldviews, knowledge and practices are shaped by diverse actors, changing local environments, and ‘old’ and ‘new’ forms of knowledge [20]. For example, the customary fishing practice - vutuguru - damaged the coral, as people ‘used to break the corals and destroy the fish hiding place…as the fish had nowhere else to hide, and they swam straight to the nets and got caught’ (woman, 2021); vutuguru is no longer practiced by villagers in Nagigi, in a bid to restore their reefs and replenish fish stocks. Conversely, some traditions are now being revived such as Yavirau, a traditional fishing method and festive celebration where residents use wooden coils to create an enclosed pool and then guide fish to the shore.
The Bia-I-Cake Women’s Club is also reshaping values and practices. Women in iTaukei communities typically have a limited role in governance and decision-making [12]; as one woman explained, ‘gender roles are split along traditional lines and this is the main obstacle for us women to contribute to community resilience’ (2021). Yet the Women’s Club has found ways to contribute to adaptation while pushing against cultural limits; they gained support from the wider community (elders, men and youth), drive their own initiatives, and provide project updates at village meetings (bose vakoro). One woman from Bia-I-Cake explained, ‘women have the capacity to build a sustainable, secure and thriving community’. So, in Nagigi village, people change practices, values and worldviews – as socioecological conditions shift and new forms of knowledge are accessed – including because of their commitment to stewardship, connection to place and Vanua, and the impetus to build a hopeful future.
Discussion
This paper, documenting adaptive capacity and actions in Nagigi village and surrounding settlements, underscores the important role of local resources, knowledge, social networks, agency, adaptation options, and worldviews. While the limits to adaptation are significant, it is important to be attentive to and support effective and often locally-led adaptation efforts [51]. In Nagigi village and settlements, residents report climate change-related impacts: coastal erosion, warming oceans, rising seas, damaged reefs, declining fish stocks, increased intensity of extreme weather events. While residents attribute these changes in part to climate change, they are linked to other socioecological challenges [35,52] including deforestation, increased commercial farming, modification of riverways, overuse of (marine) resources, destruction of coral reefs, and loss of tradition knowledge and leadership. This is a reminder that people experience and adapt to climate change risks in conjunction with other socioecological, development, disaster and resource management imperatives [21,53].
Nonetheless, residents of Nagigi and Bia-I-Cake settlement hope to remain on their land, to adapt to changing socioecological conditions, and to sustain their livelihoods using local resources. Residents report that their adaptive capacity (i.e., ability to respond to local impacts of climate and environmental changes) and adaptation actions are shaped by access to assets and resources, experiential knowledge of climate and environmental change, social organisation, agency, adaptation options, and worldviews and values (see Table 3) [1]. As populations respond to co-occurring climate impacts (e.g., sea level rise, coastal erosion) and non-climate stressors (e.g., over-fishing), it is increasingly important to understand how and why people respond to stressors and risks, and the factors that shape adaptive capacity [54].
Local forms of community-led adaptation include efforts to diversify livelihoods including through a new small-scale aquaculture initiative led by women of Bia-I-Cake settlement, marine resource management (e.g., ending the practice of vutuguru, a proposed locally-managed marine area), short-distance retreat and relocation of some low-lying homes and households away from sites of coastal risk albeit while remaining within the village/settlements as a place of belonging, and disaster preparedness including a proposed evacuation centre. Importantly, while these adaptation strategies are broadly described as community-led, their acceptability, availability and impacts can be uneven. This is unsurprising given that, as with many Pacific Island communities, in Nagigi there are complex distinctions and boundaries particularly along lines of gender and clan [18]. For example, only those low-lying households with available mataqali land are readily able to relocate, and only women from Bia-I-Cake settlement are involved in newly-established coconut and aquaculture livelihood initiatives. Further, community-led adaptation often entail multilevel interactions with government and institutions [7], including provincial and national government, donor agencies and non-government organisations. In sum, in Nagigi village and surrounding settlements diverse forms of adaptation are underway, they are unevenly available and experienced, and while community-initiated and driven they also connect with wider governance and funding structures.
Documenting adaptive capacity and community-led adaptation matters. A significant body of adaptation research and analysis focuses on macro-level processes of formal governance and institutional actors, adaptation frameworks and policies, and mobilisation of financial resources [5]. In 2011, a review by Berrang-Ford et al. [13] indicated that the major focus of adaptation research to date had been on vulnerability assessments and intentions rather than adaptation actions. In subsequent years, adaptive capacity and actions have been increasingly researched at the scale of households and community, including in connection to specific climatic hazards (e.g., floods), threats to resources (e.g., water) and sectors (e.g., agriculture), and – less frequently - climate-related threats to ecosystems, biodiversity, economic growth, urban development and human health [7]. But there has been relatively limited recognition of autonomous adaptation by communities, households and individuals [3], and limited empirical knowledge about why, who and how local actors adapt to climatic change [5,37]. And most studies still focus on large, developed nations with only 1–2% of academic studies reporting adaptive capacity and adaptation responses in Small Island States [3,7,55].
So, this case study of adaptive capacity and community-led adaptation in Fiji contributes to a small sub-set of adaptation research. Importantly, it highlights the significant role played by women in driving, if not contributing to, adaptation actions including livelihood diversification, marine resource management, and retreat and relocation. Climate change is not gender-neutral; climate risks can reinforce gender disparities and gender influences adaptive capacity. Yet the role of women as contributors to, initiators and managers of climate change adaptation initiatives is largely unrecognised or unacknowledged [56]. This paper examines adaptive capacity in a coastal community in Fiji, including the adaptive capacity and actions of women.
Conclusion
As Pacific Island communities continue to experience climate and environmental change, there is a need to support and build local adaptive capacity and action. This paper highlights intersecting experiences of climate change risks and other socioecological stressors, adaptive capacity, and local forms of adaptation. It highlights the myriad ways in which people in Nagigi and surrounding settlements maintain their lives and livelihoods in the face of climatic and ecosocial change, with notable diversity in adaptive responses that include natural resource management, livelihood diversification, retreat and relocation of households, and ‘soft’ coastal protection measure. Highlighting the central importance of social organization to adaptive capacity, these local processes of adaptation both build on and challenge structures for community organisation and governance and methods of managing resources. Women and women’s groups in particular are organising themselves in new ways that increase access to resources, diversify livelihoods, respond to coastal change, and enable agency. This paper contributes to empirical knowledge of local adaptive capacity and locally-led adaption action in the Pacific Island region.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the residents of Nagigi village and surrounding settlements, and in particular members of the Bia-I-Cake women’s club.
References
- 1. Cinner JE, Adger WN, Allison EH, Barnes ML, Brown K, Cohen PJ. Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nature Climate Change. 2018;8(2):117–23.
- 2. Hanich Q, Wabnitz CCC, Ota Y, Amos M, Donato-Hunt C, Hunt A. Small-scale fisheries under climate change in the Pacific Islands region. Marine Policy. 2018;88:279–84.
- 3. Berrang-Ford L, Siders AR, Lesnikowski A, Fischer AP, Callaghan MW, Haddaway NR. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nature Climate Change. 2021;11(11):989–1000.
- 4. Engle NL. Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change. 2011;21(2):647–56.
- 5.
IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In: Pörtner HO, Roberts DC , Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Tignor M, et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; 2022.
- 6. Currenti R, Pearce T, Salabogi T, Vuli L, Salabogi K, Doran B, et al. Adaptation to Climate Change in an Interior Pacific Island Village: a Case Study of Nawairuku, Ra, Fiji. Hum Ecol. 2019;47(1):65–80.
- 7. Siders AR. Adaptive capacity to climate change: a synthesis of concepts, methods, and findings in a fragmented field. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2019;10(3):e573.
- 8. Warrick O, Aalbersberg W, Dumaru P, McNaught R, Teperman K. The ‘Pacific Adaptive Capacity Analysis Framework’: guiding the assessment of adaptive capacity in Pacific island communities. Reg Environ Change. 2016;17(4):1039–51.
- 9. Vincent K, Cundill G. The evolution of empirical adaptation research in the global South from 2010 to 2020. Climate and Development. 2022;14(1):25–38.
- 10.
Cooley S, Schoeman D, Bopp L, Boyd P, Donner S, Ito S, et al. Oceans and Coastal Ecosystems and Their Services. In: Pörtner HO, et al. (eds). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2022.
- 11. Mcleod E, Arora-Jonsson S, Masuda YJ, Bruton-Adams M, Emaurois CO, Gorong B, et al. Raising the voices of Pacific Island women to inform climate adaptation policies. Marine Policy. 2018;93:178–85.
- 12. Pearson J, McNamara KE, Nunn PD. Gender-specific perspectives of mangrove ecosystem services: Case study from Bua Province, Fiji Islands. Ecosystem Services. 2019;38:100970.
- 13. Berrang-Ford L, Ford JD, Paterson J. Are we adapting to climate change? Global Environmental Change. 2011;21(1):25–33.
- 14. Farbotko C. Wishful sinking: Disappearing islands, climate refugees and cosmopolitan experimentation. Asia Pacific Viewpoint. 2010;51(1):47–60.
- 15. Nunn PD, Kumar R, Barrowman HB, Chambers L, Fifita L, Gegeo D, et al. Traditional knowledge for climate resilience in the Pacific Islands. WIRES-Climate Change. 2024;15:e882.
- 16. Medina Hidalgo D, Nunn PD, Beazley H. Uncovering multilayered vulnerability and resilience in rural villages in the Pacific: a case study of Ono Island, Fiji. Ecology and Society. 2021;26(1).
- 17. Remling E, Veitayaki J. Community-based action in Fiji’s Gau Island: a model for the Pacific? IJCCSM. 2016;8(3):375–98.
- 18. McNamara KE, Clissold R, Westoby R, Piggott-McKellar AE, Kumar R, Clarke T, et al. An assessment of community-based adaptation initiatives in the Pacific Islands. Nat Clim Chang. 2020;10(7):628–39.
- 19. Kuruppu N, Liverman D. Mental preparation for climate adaptation: The role of cognition and culture in enhancing adaptive capacity of water management in Kiribati. Global Environmental Change. 2011;21(2):657–69.
- 20. Rarai A, Parsons M, Nursey-Bray M, Crease R. Situating climate change adaptation within plural worlds: The role of Indigenous and local knowledge in Pentecost Island, Vanuatu. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space. 2022;5(4):2240–82.
- 21. Jarillo S, Barnett J. Contingent communality and community-based adaptation to climate change: Insights from a Pacific rural atoll. Journal of Rural Studies. 2021;87:137–45.
- 22. Granderson AA. The Role of Traditional Knowledge in Building Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change: Perspectives from Vanuatu. Weather, Climate, and Society. 2017;9(3):545–61.
- 23. Nalau J, Becken S, Schliephack J, Parsons M, Brown C, Mackey B. The role of indigenous and traditional knowledge in ecosystem-based adaptation: A review of the literature and case studies from the Pacific Islands. Weather, Climate and Society. 2018;10(4):851–65.
- 24. Piggott-McKellar AE, McMichael C. The immobility-relocation continuum: diverse responses to coastal change in a small island state. Environmental Science & Policy. 2021;125:105–15.
- 25. Buggy L, McNamara KE. The need to reinterpret ‘community’ for climate change adaptation: A case study of Pele Island, Vanuatu. Climate and Development. 2016;8(3):270–80.
- 26. Mortreux C, O’Neill S, Barnett J. Between adaptive capacity and action: new insights into climate change adaptation at the household scale. Environ Res Lett. 2020;15(7):074035.
- 27. Brown K, Westaway E. Agency, Capacity, and Resilience to Environmental Change: Lessons from Human Development, Well-Being, and Disasters. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2011;36(1):321–42.
- 28. Biesbroek GR, Klostermann JEM, Termeer CJAM, Kabat P. On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg Environ Change. 2013;13(5):1119–29.
- 29. Eriksen SH, Nightingale AJ, Eakin H. Reframing adaptation: The political nature of climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change. 2015;35:523–33.
- 30. Fazey I, Wise RM, Lyon C, Câmpeanu C, Moug P, Davies TE. Past and future adaptation pathways. Climate and Development. 2016;8(1):26–44.
- 31. Nalau J, Preston BL, Maloney MC. Is adaptation a local responsibility? Environmental Science & Policy. 2015;48:89–98.
- 32. Thomas A, Theokritoff E, Lesnikowski A, Reckien D, Jagannathan K, Cremades R, et al. Global evidence of constraints and limits to human adaptation. Reg Environ Change. 2021;21(3).
- 33. Andrijevic M, Schleussner C-F, Crespo Cuaresma J, Lissner T, Muttarak R, Riahi K, et al. Towards scenario representation of adaptive capacity for global climate change assessments. Nat Clim Chang. 2023;13(8):778–87.
- 34. Balzan MV, Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R. Island ecosystem services: insights from a literature review on case-study island ecosystem services and future prospects. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management. 2018;14:71–90.
- 35. McCubbin S, Smit B, Pearce T. Where does climate fit? Vulnerability to climate change in the context of multiple stressors in Funafuti, Tuvalu. Global Environmental Change. 2015;30:43–55.
- 36. Nightingale AJ, Eriksen S, Taylor M, Forsyth T, Pelling M, Newsham A, et al. Beyond Technical Fixes: climate solutions and the great derangement. Climate and Development. 2019;12(4):343–52.
- 37. Barnes ML, Wang P, Cinner JE, Graham NAJ, Guerrero AM, Jasny L, et al. Social determinants of adaptive and transformative responses to climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2020;10(9):823–8.
- 38. Nabobo-Baba U. Decolonising Framings in Pacific Research: Indigenous Fijian Vanua Research Framework as an Organic Response. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples. 2008;4(2):140–54.
- 39. Suaalii‐Sauni T, Fulu‐Aiolupotea SM. Decolonising Pacific research, building Pacific research communities and developing Pacific research tools: The case of the talanoa and the faafaletui in Samoa. Asia Pacific Viewpoint. 2014;55(3):331–44.
- 40. Vaioleti T. Talanoa: Differentiating the talanoa research methodology from phenomenology, narrative, Kaupapa Maori and feminist methodologies. Te Reo. 2013;56:191–212.
- 41. Singh C, Iyer S, New MG, Few R, Kuchimanchi B, Segnon AC, et al. Interrogating ‘effectiveness’ in climate change adaptation: 11 guiding principles for adaptation research and practice. Climate and Development. 2021;14(7):650–64.
- 42. Fiji Department of Immigration. Research permit. 2017 Fiji Department of Immigration, Suva. https://www.immigration.gov.fj/research-permit
- 43. Albert S, Aswani S, Fisher PL, Albert J. Keeping Food on the Table: Human Responses and Changing Coastal Fisheries in Solomon Islands. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0130800. pmid:26158694
- 44. Kitolelei S, Thaman R, Veitayaki J, Breckwoldt A, Piovano S. Na vuku makawa ni qoli: Indigenous fishing knowledge (IFK) in Fiji and the Pacific. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2021;8:684303.
- 45. Harding S, Marama K, Breckwoldt A, Matairakula U, Fache E. Marine resources and their value in Kadavu, Fiji. Ambio. 2022;51(12):2414–30. pmid:36181658
- 46. Leal Filho W, Lütz JM, Sattler DN, Nunn PD. Coronavirus: COVID-19 Transmission in Pacific Small Island Developing States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15):5409. pmid:32731327
- 47. Prakash A, McGlade K, Roxy MK, Roy J, Some S, Rao N. Climate Adaptation Interventions in Coastal Areas: A Rapid Review of Social and Gender Dimensions. Front Clim. 2022;4.
- 48. O’Garra T, Mangubhai S, Jagadish A, Tabunakawai-Vakalalabure M, Tawake A, Govan H, Mills M. National-level evaluation of a community-based marine management initiative. Nature Sustainability 2023 15:1–1.
- 49. Pauli N, Clifton J, Elrick-Barr C. Evaluating marine areas in Fiji. Nature Sustainability. 2023;15:1–2.
- 50. Robertson T, Greenhalgh S, Korovulavula I, Tikoibua T, Radikedike P, Stahlmann-Brown P. Locally managed marine areas: implications for socio-economic impacts in Kadavu, Fiji. Marine Policy. 2020;117:103950.
- 51. Hayward B, Salili DH, Tupuana’i LL, Tualamali’i’ J. It’s not “too late”: Learning from Pacific Small Island Developing States in a warming world. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2020;11(1):e612.
- 52. Golden AS, Naisilsisili W, Ligairi I, Drew JA. Combining natural history collections with fisher knowledge for community-based conservation in Fiji. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e98036. pmid:24849330
- 53. Robinson SA. Climate change adaptation in SIDS: a systematic review of the literature pre and post the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2020;11(4):e653.
- 54. Green KM, Selgrath JC, Frawley TH, Oestreich WK, Mansfield EJ, Urteaga J, et al. How adaptive capacity shapes the Adapt, React, Cope response to climate impacts: insights from small-scale fisheries. Climatic Change. 2021;164(1–2).
- 55. Latai-Niusulu A, Tsujita M, Neef A. Climate micro-mobilities as adaptation practice in the Pacific: the case of Samoa. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2023;378(1889):20220392. pmid:37718607
- 56. Dev DS, Manalo JA IV. Gender and adaptive capacity in climate change scholarship of developing countries: a systematic review of literature. Climate and Development. 2023;15(10):829–40.