Fiji is an archipelago situated in the South West Pacific Ocean and home to 330 islands, with Vanua Levu the second largest (Viti Levu being the largest). Approximately 15% of the total 900 000 population live on Vanua Levu. In total, roughly 45% of inhabitants of Fiji live in rural areas, which has declined from 70% in 1960 (World Bank 2018). The case study sites for this research are two villages, Karoko and Korotasere, located on Vanua Levu Island (see Figure 12). Like most rural areas in Fiji, both villages are coastal and largely subsistence-based relying heavily on marine and terrestrial resources for their livelihoods. Karoko is a significant distance from
the nearest town center, Savusavu while Korotasere is situated much closer to Savusavu. A bus services both villages along the only road serving that area.
Research into climate impacts in the Pacific Region over the past few decades show that increases in sea-level have been occurring over the last 150 years and are projected to increase up to 80cm above the 1985-2005 mean by 2100 (Church et al 2013). Alongside this, increased surface temperatures and strength of El Niño and La Niña cycles mean that there is likely to be an increase in cyclone intensity creating more impactful storm surges (Walsh et al 2016). For coastal communities, this means an increased threat of flooding events that can impact livelihoods. Both case studies in the research have a history of flooding in the village. In Karoko this has become exacerbated in recent years as an elderly member of the village explained:
“When I was small we didn’t have as much high tide and the village never flooded. But now we see a lot of change” (Karoko FG).
As both villages have been facing impacts from flooding, there was a desire within the villages for some form of coastal protection measure. In Korotasere a seawall was specifically requested by the village. In Karoko, while there was a desire for some type of coastal protection, a seawall was one option that had been discussed in the village, alongside relocation. Despite this lack of consensus, the implementation of the seawall was welcomed by the village: “We don’t know how to start at a new place so a lot of people lean toward the
Figure 12: Map of the two case study sites - Karoko and Korotasere - on Vanua Levu Island, Fiji
seawall rather than relocate… we felt good that the seawall was going to be built” (Karoko FG).
This desire of a seawall is representative of the feelings of safety that can be garnered by having a physical structure in place (Lincke and Hinkel 2018). In Karoko the seawall was along the coastal side of the village, while in Korotasere the seawall was constructed along the river.
Both seawalls were funded through USAID under the C-CAP and implemented in both communities at the end of 2015. In its totality, the project was implemented in numerous communities across nine countries throughout the Pacific region, in consultation with respective governments and local partners. The actual construction was undertaken by a local contractor. One of the project’s primary objectives is to implement infrastructure adaptations to withstand climate change impacts and increase community resilience. In both Karoko and Korotasere, this resulted in the construction of seawalls in the communities. In both Karoko and Korotasere, this resulted in the construction of seawalls in the communities.
4.3 Methods
The research team consisted of the lead author, who led the discussions with the community members, and the fourth author who helped with translation and independently led discussions, playing a pivotal role in the research process. A local provincial representative acted as gatekeeper for the research team, contacting and arranging site visits with both villages ahead of time. This was done to arrange an appropriate time to visit and ensure that community members were willing, available, and prepared for FG discussions. Ensuring this initial contact is done in an appropriate and respectful manner that is in line with the cultural and societal norms is an essential step in the research procedure when working in PICs. While people who have worked in this region are well aware of the importance of this, the following is presented as a cautionary tale for others. In one of the villages participants noted that another research team had recently arrived unannounced at the village to talk to people without any prior arrangement. They arrived on a Sunday, this being a day of prayer for island communities. As such the community members were not impressed with this visit and stated they refused to talk to them.
Field visits were undertaken during November and December 2017. In Karoko, the village was visited over a two-day period with two formal FG discussions occurring, one women’s FG and
one men’s FG. This was also hoped to occur in Korotasere although on the first day the research team found a funeral was planned for the following day and, as such, only one day was spent in the village and as such one FG was undertaken with a combination of men and women. Site visits to inspect the seawalls as well as walk around the village were also undertaken. Ethical procedures were followed in which participants were given details of the research and asked to sign a consent form. Each FG was recorded with permission from the participants. The qualitative data collected from the field visits was later transcribed and a content analysis undertaken where information was coded according to FG questions to elucidate common responses and experiences.
There were some limitations experienced in this research. Of note was the limited time spent in Korotasere, with only one day spent in the village. Yet, this was unavoidable owing to the unanticipated funeral proceedings planned for the following day, and the time constraints of the researchers. Second, as this research uses qualitative data, there is an assumption that information presented by village participants is true and honest to their individual experiences.
Yet, there is potential bias, such as positive response bias or social desirability bias, when implementing such experiential qualitive methods (Bryman 2008). Finally, there can be challenges associated with the translation of words from the local language into English and vice versa (Rudiak-Gould 2012).