Content uploaded by Anita Latai
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anita Latai on Feb 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
PERSPECTIVE
Cascading loss and loss risk multipliers amid a changing climate
in the Pacific Islands
Ross Westoby , Rachel Clissold , Karen E. McNamara , Anita Latai-Niusulu,
Alvin Chandra
Received: 20 April 2021 / Revised: 2 August 2021 / Accepted: 26 September 2021
Abstract Human society has experienced, and will
continue to experience, extensive loss and damage from
worsening anthropogenic climate change. Despite our
natural tendencies to categorise and organise, it can be
unhelpful to delineate clean boundaries and linear
understandings for complex and messy concepts such as
loss and damage. Drawing on the perspectives of 42 local
and regional Pacific Islander stakeholders, an
underexplored resource for understanding loss and
damage, we explore the complexity and
interconnectedness of non-economic loss and damage
(NELD). According to participants, Pacific Islander
worldviews, knowledge systems and cosmologies often
make it difficult to separate and evaluate NELD
independently, challenging the nomenclature of NELD
categories developed through international mechanisms.
Instead, NELD understandings are often centred on the
interdependencies between losses, including the cascading
flow-on effects that can occur and the nature of some losses
as risk multipliers (i.e. one loss creating the risk for further
losses). Most notably, losses to biodiversity, ecosystem
services and land are critically linked to, and have
cascading effects on, livelihoods, knowledge, ways of
life, wellbeing, and culture and heritage. We argue that loss
and damage is not always absolute, and that there are
NELD that are arguably reparable. Concerning, however, is
that biodiversity loss, as a risk multiplier, was considered
the least reparable by participants. We put forward that
NELD understandings must consider interconnectivity, and
that biodiversity and ecosystem conservation and
restoration must be the focus for interventions to prevent
irreparable and cascading losses from climate change in the
Pacific Islands.
Keywords Climate change Interdependencies
Non-economic loss and damage Pacific Islands
Reparable
INTRODUCTION
The United Nations (2021) has issued a scientific blueprint
for how the climate crisis is creating new risks for natural
and human systems. Human relationships with nature have
transformed and amplified losses to biodiversity, ecosys-
tem integrity, flora and fauna species, and land productiv-
ity. Human society is increasingly faced with the
widespread impacts of anthropogenic climate change.
While biophysical and social systems will continue to
change and adjust to these stressors (Adger et al. 2003),
barriers and limits to adaptation have emerged (Dow et al.
2013; Spires et al. 2014). As a consequence of reaching an
‘‘adaptation frontier’’ (Preston et al. 2013, p. 1011),
whereby socio-ecological systems can no longer exist in a
safe operating space before reaching a limit, loss and
damage will continue to accelerate across ‘‘social and
ecological domains’’ as a result of climate change (Barnett
et al. 2016, p. 976). Climate change loss and damage is
diverse and complex in nature and does not necessarily
follow a linear and teleological script.
Seminal work around loss by Tschakert et al. (2019)
illustrated one thousand ways to experience loss from over
100 case studies from around the world. It showcased
‘‘numerous lived experiences with climate-related harm’’,
such as losses to culture and traditions, physical and mental
health, sense of place and social fabric as well as identity
and dignity, among others (Tschakert et al. 2019, p. 69).
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01640-9
McNamara et al. (2021a) conducted a systematic review to
understand what was already known about non-economic
loss and damage (NELD) (i.e. those irreducible to eco-
nomic terms) in the Pacific Islands region and concluded
that: ‘‘[n]on-economic loss and damage induced by climate
change in the Pacific Islands region has been reported as
fears of cultural loss, deterioration of vital ecosystem ser-
vices, and dislocation from ancestral lands, among others’’.
NELD is a critical area of focus, as loss and damage
research and practice has tended to prioritise identifying
and addressing economic losses and damages that are
easier to quantify and monetise (McNamara and Jackson
2019). There are, therefore, still limited in-depth under-
standings of NELD and how they can be addressed, rebuilt
and worked through, which can discount certain experi-
ences and distort or skew constructions of climate change
and associated decision-making (Magee et al. 2016;
McShane 2017; Thomas and Benjamin 2020).
The interconnected and cascading nature of loss and
damage in the Pacific has emerged in other studies.
Ecosystem and biodiversity losses have, for example, been
observed to have inherent cascading effects on people and
livelihoods (Goulding et al. 2016; Sattler 2017; Pearce
et al. 2018; Thomas et al. 2019; van der Geest et al. 2020).
Ca
´mara-Leret et al. (2019) also refer to the impact of cli-
mate change on ‘biocultural heritage’, illustrating how
climate change diminishes the wellbeing and cultural
integrity of Indigenous peoples by affecting endemic plant
species. Damage to the relationship between people and
their customary lands from climate change also has severe
implications for the material, cultural and social security as
well as emotional and spiritual wellbeing of Pacific Islan-
der people (Campbell 2019). In this way, NELD affects the
interlinked socio-ecological system with embedded cul-
tural, social and ecological structures, rather than affecting
people and ecosystems separately. McNamara et al.
(2021b) argue that, in the Pacific, NELD can undermine
entire socio-ecological systems, and are understood, per-
ceived and experienced through the lens of intangible
values, identity and cultural landscapes. Works by Epeli
Hau’ofa (2008) that traverse the breadth of Oceania remind
us that this interconnectivity transfers to regional scales as
there is a deep connection between everything. The ‘sea of
islands’ are a conglomeration of islands not restricted by
geopolitical boundaries but connected by the sea and sea-
farers (Hau’ofa 1998).
In this paper, we build on the growing body of work on
NELD by arguing that NELD is complex, messy and
highly interconnected, making it difficult and largely
unconstructive to compartmentalise and create linear tra-
jectories for how loss and damage will transpire. We also
find that NELD is not always absolute, and that there are
losses and damages that are arguably reparable. However,
we give caution here as, given this overwhelming inter-
connectedness, loss and damage that might be considered
reparable may become more permanent due to cascading
flow-on effects. This paper invokes a discussion on the
interconnectedness of loss and damage and how we can
address them while considering what may be more
immediately reparable.
METHODS
In this paper, we draw from local stakeholder perspectives
of NELD in the Pacific Islands that were collected through
an online questionnaire carried out between 18 September
and 30 October 2020 (6 weeks duration). We created the
questionnaire using the Checkbox survey software and
followed ethical guidelines and approval from the
University of Queensland (approval number 2020000640).
The majority of the 27 questions were open-ended (creat-
ing significant qualitative data) and drew on stakeholder’s
knowledge, experiences and practices. Questions centred
around key topics including NELD knowledge gaps,
understandings of NELD in the Pacific Islands, experiences
of NELD and strategies to respond to NELD. We used the
following 12 categories of NELD (based on Morrissey and
Oliver-Smith 2013; UNFCCC 2013) to structure our
questions around the range of existing and anticipated
types of NELD: human life, human health, human mobil-
ity, territory, culture and heritage, Indigenous and local
knowledge, biodiversity, ecosystem services, place
attachment and sense of place, social cohesion, agency, and
identity.
Using online searches, our own personal networks of
colleagues and snowballing (i.e. asking colleagues to rec-
ommend others working in this area), we developed a list
of 360 potential stakeholders working on climate change
and disaster risk reduction in the region (adaptation, miti-
gation, loss and damage, humanitarian responses). All 360
potential stakeholders were emailed to participate in this
study, followed by two reminder emails to help garner a
high response rate. Overall, we yielded 42 responses (13%
response rate) across five target stakeholder groups in the
sample (see Table 1). Quantitative data were analysed
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) (v27) and qualitative data were, using the NVivo
software program, analysed through content analysis to
capture key themes and storylines.
While the n-value might appear low for a quantitative
study, our sampling frame was very specific: only stake-
holders working in this area. There were slightly more
male than female participants, with the youngest partici-
pant being 19, oldest being 63 and mean age of participants
being 42.6. Fiji was the most common country of origin
123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021
www.kva.se/en
Ambio
and residence for respondents, followed by the Cook
Islands and Australia. There was representation of partic-
ipants (as country of origin) from Fiji, Cook Islands, Papua
New Guinea, Samoa, Vanuatu, Federated States of
Micronesia, Solomon Islands, American Samoa and New
Caledonia, however, several other Pacific Island countries
were not represented by participants in this study, which
remains a limitation. The questions and methods for this
study were also designed to ascertain the views of pro-
fessional ‘expert’ groups rather than laypeople’s views,
primarily due to fieldwork restrictions due to COVID-19. A
future study on laypeople’s views will be critical for further
building upon, unpacking and refining the findings of this
paper.
FINDINGS
The interconnectedness of NELD types
According to stakeholders, deteriorating biodiversity and
ecosystem services that support livelihoods were the most
significant examples of climate-induced NELD being
experienced now and anticipated for the future in the
Pacific Islands. Concerns for biodiversity and ecosystems
were followed closely by losses and damages to human
health and then intolerable losses to Indigenous knowledge,
identity, and culture and heritage. Losses and damages
related to mobility, social cohesion, sense of place, agency,
life and territory were the least prominent losses according
to stakeholders. The key finding here, however, is the
interconnectedness between these seemingly disparate
categories of NELD. The inherent interconnectedness
became clear when participants were asked to identify
which NELD they valued most. Responses included ‘‘All
of them are important to our living’’ and ‘‘We cannot value
one over the other and be more concerned about one at the
expense of the other—all are linked to each other’’ (par-
ticipants #17 and #15, 2020).
While there are casual links between all categories of
NELD, the relationship and links between biodiversity,
identity and culture were particularly emphasised. For
many stakeholders, evaluating loss types independently
from nature was difficult and unhelpful as it did not reflect
their holistic worldview:
‘‘I value all of them. All the types focus on the person
in relation to her/his environment, their identity,
resources and wellbeing’’ (participant #39, 2020).
My culture, identity and traditions are tied to my land
and my ocean, this is inseparable. You can’t ask a
Pacific Islander to choose what is important and what
is not when it comes to the environment, given our
cultural and spiritual ties to it (participant #35, 2020)
It is, therefore, clear that losses from climate change are
not occurring to the ecosystem and people separately, but
to an interconnected system with embedded social, cultural
and ecological structures that form the foundation of
identity, wellbeing, way of life, worldviews and self-es-
teem (Couzin 2007; Mustonen 2013; Williams and Hard-
ison 2014; Movono et al. 2017; Yazzie et al. 2019). In this
way, one stakeholder emphasised that climate change is
‘‘another mode of erasure’’ of Indigenous people altogether
(participant #1, 2020).
It also became clear that the elements in the system are
highly connected and held in balance, so that an impact on
one aspect has a cascading effect on others:
Land, Family (Home), Spirituality, and Culture
(Identity) are what makes a person whole. Remove
any one of these elements and the equilibrium will be
tipped or swayed to one side more than another
causing an imbalance in how things are played out in
society (participant #15, 2020)
Table 1 Sample size of stakeholder groups and countries represented in the questionnaire
Key informant stakeholder group Sample size
(n-value)
Respondent country of residence and work
Government (local, national and regional)* 15 American Samoa, Cook Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea,
Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands
Civil society (non-governmental organisations, faith-based
organisations, community-based organisations, youth groups)
14 Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Samoa, Vanuatu
Intergovernmental organisations inclusive of regional agencies 7 Fiji, Samoa, New Caledonia
Donors and development partners 4 Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji
Relevant others (universities, student associations, research-based
organisations, private sector)
2 Australia, Cook Islands
Total 42
*Three participants chose not to disclose their country of residence and work
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
The importance of ‘balance’ for health and wellness has
been emphasised in other studies on Indigenous cultures
(Mackean 2009; McKendrick et al. n.d). Ihara and Vaka-
lahi (2011, p. 405) and Manuela and Sibley (2013,2015),
for example, noted from a Pacific perspective, ‘‘wellness
does not exist without the balance of the spirit, body, mind
and environment’’.
Central to this balance in the system are the environ-
ment, biodiversity and ecosystem services. Pacific com-
munities ‘‘rely heavily on terrestrial and marine ecosystems
to provide services, including food security, water security,
traditional medicine, building material, material for hand-
icraft, coastal protection, etc.’’ and the environment is ‘‘the
spiritual temple for the Fa’aSamoa (Samoan way of life)’’
(participants #31 and #1, 2020). Many studies have
demonstrated the integral role that biodiversity and
ecosystems play in providing critical material resources for
nutrition and health, but also for the maintenance of cul-
tural heritage and Indigenous knowledge (see Williams and
Hardison 2014; Asch et al. 2018; Hanich et al. 2018). The
connectedness between socio-cultural and ecological
aspects was clear as many stakeholders outlined that losses
to biodiversity, ecosystems and environment translated to
cascading impacts on knowledge, way of life and
wellbeing:
Climate change is impacting biodiversity and
ecosystem services (drinking water, sources of food
etc) everywhere (near the coast and in highlands all
the same) and impacts a lot more people in the Pacific
than the others [loss types]. These contribute to loss
of ILK [Indigenous local knowledge] and reducing
quality of human life (participant #23, 2020)
…local knowledge will be affected by changes in the
environment linked to increasing temperatures and
change in rainfall…(participant #31, 2020)
The inherent links between loss types could also be
identified in the context of migration or displacement and
loss of land. Loss of land and the deep connections to land
have cascading risks to cultural and spiritual values. For
instance, loss of land results in direct ‘‘loss of traditional
and sacred grounds such as burial grounds, old village
sites, cultural sites, sacred fishing grounds, traditional trees
and plants, [and] traditional habitation’’ (participant #29,
2020). These losses multiply and indirectly result in further
losses such as the ‘‘loss of traditional knowledge (that
comes with loss of natural/native resources), loss of cul-
tural ties to their land, loss of traditional family/vanua ties
that comes with displacement, etc.’’ (participant #29,
2020). Losing land means cascading ‘‘loss [of] our cultural
sites and medicines and place of practicing our custom
songs and dances’’ (participant #19, 2020). It is the
interactions and interconnectedness between people and
land that give rise to culture heritage (e.g. knowledge,
traditional customs, cultural practices, way of life) but also
learning, self-esteem, security and sense of identity
(Movono et al. 2017; Campbell 2019; Ford et al. 2020).
The interconnectedness of these elements illustrates that
‘loss’ is messy with one category or ‘type’ interplaying
with other categories. It is therefore critical that NELD
studies, and the policy and practice that flows thereafter,
consider the interconnectedness of NELD, as understood
and described by participants in this study.
We draw upon Samoan notions here to further demon-
strate these connections. The Samoan phrase E atoa lio le
masina likens life to the roundness of the moon. This view
is underpinned by the notion of the va-tapuia which
according to Aiono Le Tagaloa (1996a,b) and Tamasese
(2007) is a force that exists between the living and the
dead, and between human and physical aspects of the
environment such as land, sea, sky, plants and animals.
Tamasese (2007, p. 18) discusses the literal meaning of va-
tapuia, which is tapu-ia (sacred) and va (relationship)
between human and all things animate and inanimate. Va-
tapuia dictates how Samoans behave in their environment.
These behavioural norms give rise to the principle of va-
fealoai (mutual respect) that permeates human interaction
with all elements of the environment. It is, therefore, clear
how these understandings may translate to centering
interconnectivity in the comprehension and experience of
NELD.
Are losses reparable?
Insights from stakeholders also showed that loss surpris-
ingly, in some instances, can be reparable—and therefore
doesn’t have to be an absolute given. Tautologically, one
could argue that it is therefore actually not a loss, but what
this alludes to is that, in some ways, a loss can be worked
through, overcome and something new can emerge.
88.9 83.3 78.4
68.6 65.7 64.9 63.9 63.9 62.9 61.1 58.3
41.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
REPARABILITY
NELD TYPES
Fig. 1 The percentage of participants who consider each NELD type
to be reparable
123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021
www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Agency (see Fig. 1) was the most reparable loss, con-
noting the strong resilience and self-actualisation qualities
of Pacific Islanders. Stakeholders shared that even though
losses are inevitable, they believed that their capacity to
control their own destiny is very much within their realm of
control. Such strengths-based self-reflections are high-
lighted elsewhere in the literature, particularly through the
Pacific Climate Warriors discourse, which encapsulate
Pacific Island leaders fighting for climate justice in global
fora and so forth (see Steiner 2015; Fair 2020).
Social cohesion was also considered to be highly
reparable, highlighting a sense of strong social and cultural
resources present in the Pacific Islands. Strong and
enduring social cohesion is grounded in the connectedness
and solidarity within countries, people feeling a part of a
‘community’ and a strong relationship between its mem-
bers. In the Pacific Islands, varied and ‘tight’ networks
within social and familial bonds have previously proved
critical for rebuilding and recovery efforts, and can also be
strengthened and reinforced in the face of adversities such
as extreme weather events (Latai-Niusulu et al. 2020).
According to stakeholders, the least reparable loss types
included biodiversity, and culture and heritage. There is
already documented evidence, albeit limited, of these types
of irreparable losses transpiring. In Papua New Guinea
(PNG), for example, Ca
´mara-Leret et al. (2019) highlight
how climate-induced local extinctions of wild foods,
medicine and ritual plants are having cascading impacts on
ecosystem services and are ultimately affecting commu-
nities’ wellbeing and the cultural integrity of PNG bio-
cultural heritage. This study reiterates the cascading effects
of irreparable biodiversity loss on culture and heritage and
highlights the danger in creating neat nomenclature around
loss as this might dilute the importance of interconnections.
It, therefore, becomes highly critical for biodiversity and
ecosystem deterioration to be viewed through the lens of
intangible values and cultural landscapes (Morrissey and
Oliver-Smith 2013; McNamara et al., 2021b).
How do we address loss and damage?
Pacific Islanders have in-depth understandings of the world
imbued in multiple and complex overlapping systems that
are deeply embedded within cosmological understandings
of how the Earth sustains itself and us. These foundational
insights are clearly centred on the environmental ceiling
that binds us all and these were reflected in the participants’
understandings of the interconnectedness of losses. Biodi-
versity, and the services that this diversity enables, is
paramount and any losses will have cascading effects. To
borrow the term ‘risk multiplier’, and with the knowledge
that climate change increases risk multipliers for conflict
and also disaster loss (UNFCCC 2018), we argue that
losses in themselves can be loss risk multipliers insofar as a
loss can create risk for future losses.
It is, therefore, critical that biodiversity, as the least
reparable loss with its loss multiplier potential, be the key
focus for intervention to prevent other cascading losses
from transpiring in the socio-ecological system. This was
emphasised by the participants who centred discussions on
good practice around minimising and addressing NELD
through biodiversity and ecosystem conservation and
restoration. Specific examples included the planting of
mangroves, locally managed marine area network initia-
tives, and clean up campaigns, re-afforestation projects and
‘‘the legal status in national policy for nature and natural
components’’ (participants #6, #23 and #4, 2020). These
strategies simultaneously protect features of cultural her-
itage, Indigenous knowledge and health through helping to
preserve and maintain people-ecology interactions and the
socio-ecological system.
While the mechanisms are being established and the
international discourse on loss and damage is growing,
according to one stakeholder: ‘‘there is very little knowl-
edge on NELD in the region’’ (participant #2, 2020).
Similarly, another stakeholder emphasised that there is a
lack of prioritisation in terms of understanding loss at that
local grassroots level: ‘‘…while NELD has been an
objective of discussion at the national level, it is not part of
conversation at the community level—especially the
understanding of it and what it means for the Pacific peo-
ple’’ (participant #42, 2020). These sentiments were reit-
erated by other stakeholders who argued: ‘‘…we need to
first of all get the basics around loss and damage in place’’
(participant #16, 2020) and that there is ‘‘not an urgency,
no finance available for this kind of survey [of loss and]
damages’’ (participant #4, 2020). While there is limited
documented understandings of the specifics of NELD at
different scales in the Pacific Islands, this certainly does
not mean that Pacific Islanders are not deeply aware of and
familiar with such ideas. Future studies should continue to
enrich and unpack the complex understandings and expe-
riences of NELD at different scales in the Pacific.
Through these findings and previous studies (McNamara
et al. 2021a,b), we put forward that biodiversity loss
assessments—whether they are standalone or in-built to
existing vulnerability assessments—should be a priority
research area. Particular attention to the interactions within
the socio-ecological system, and flow-on effects to Pasifika
wellbeing, livelihoods and culture, among other elements
need to be embedded into both biodiversity and ecosystem
services assessments as well as research around loss in the
Pacific, which is lacking to date (McNamara et al.
2021a,b). These assessments need to incorporate social
science expertise, appreciating that biodiversity loss has
direct links to other cascading losses that need to be
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
captured and focused on. Only through holistic assessments
of loss can the true picture of direct impacts, losses and
damages be accounted for and the opportunity costs of
action and notions of triage be considered. In order to be
holistic, these assessments must also gain understandings at
a grassroots scale through incorporating local perspectives
and using bottom-up approaches.
CONCLUSION
Pasifika people’s deep connection with land and sea and
the interconnectedness of Pacific Islanders across territorial
lines is an enduring feature of the Region (Hau’ofa 2008).
Similarly, indigenous concepts such as vanua in Fiji or
Fa’afaletui in Samoa (and those that are similar across all
the Pacific Islands) highlight the deep connection between
land and sea, place, and identity, and these are reflected in
the way Pacific Islanders understand and experience the
mosaic of experienced and anticipated NELD. These
interconnections need to be integrated into the way NELD
is also addressed. It is encouraging to see nations such as
Vanuatu already linking priorities around climate change
adaptation with diet-related non-communicable diseases
and focusing on developing interconnected solutions to
complex and wicked problems.
The interconnectedness of NELD types also demon-
strate how some NELD are risk multipliers, cascading into
further losses in other areas. Biodiversity and ecosystem
services, for example, were identified as highly concerning
risk multipliers as they play a crucial role in supporting
livelihoods, cultural heritage and ways of life in the Pacific.
A deep engagement with issues of biodiversity loss is
warranted in the Pacific Islands. Combining the fact that
biodiversity loss is the most significant loss being experi-
enced now and anticipated in the future with the fact that it
is also the least reparable invokes an urgency to act, par-
ticularly in ways that conserve and restore ecosystems and
biodiversity. This reinforces the need in the Pacific for
ecosystem and nature-based solutions as well as approa-
ches that work to enhance people-nature connections, such
as existing efforts through the Pacific Blue Economy
(SPREP 2020). We emphasise the need to continue docu-
menting these losses and implementing ecosystem-based
solutions with upmost priority. This will help account for
and prevent loss risk multipliers across the Pacific Islands.
A final note is that while stakeholders with varying
understandings of NELD in the Pacific Islands offer
numerous insights, further work is needed at the grassroots
interface to explore the localised experiences and mani-
festations of NELD across the region.
Funding This work was supported through an Australian Research
Council Future Fellowship grant (number FT190100114).
Declarations
Conflict of interest The views expressed in this paper are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations.
REFERENCES
Adger, W.N., S. Huq, K. Brown, D. Conway, and M. Hulme. 2003.
Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Progress
in Development Studies 3: 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1191/
1464993403ps060oa.
Aiono-Le Tagaloa, F. 1996a. O la ta Gagana. Apia: Le Lamepa Press.
Aiono Le Tagaloa, F. 1996b. Motugaafa. Apia: Le Lamepa Press.
Asch, R.G., W.W.L. Cheung, and G. Reygondeau. 2018. Future
marine ecosystem drivers, biodiversity, and fisheries maximum
catch potential in Pacific Island countries and territories under
climate change. Marine Policy 88: 285–294. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpol.2017.08.015.
Barnett, J., P. Tschakert, L. Head, and W.N. Adger. 2016. A science
of loss. Nature Climate Change 6: 976–978. https://doi.org/10.
1038/nclimate3140.
Ca
´mara-Leret, R., N. Raes, P. Roehrdanz, Y. De Fretes, C.D.
Heatubun, L. Roeble, A. Schuiteman, P.C. van Welzen, and L.
Hannah. 2019. Climate change threatens New Guinea’s biocul-
tural heritage. Science Advances 5: eaaz1455. https://doi.org/10.
1126/sciadv.aaz1455.
Campbell, J. 2019. Climate Change, Migration and Land in Oceania.
Toda Peace Institute, Policy Brief No. 37, Tokyo, Japan.
Couzin, J. 2007. Opening doors to native knowledge. Science 315:
1518–1519. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.315.5818.1518.
Dow, K., F. Berkhout, B.L. Preston, R.J.T. Klein, G. Midgley, and
M.R. Shaw. 2013. Limits to adaptation. Nature Climate Change
3: 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1847.
Fair, H. 2020. Their sea of islands? Pacific climate warriors, oceanic
identities, and world enlargement. The Contemporary Pacific 32:
341–369. https://doi.org/10.1353/cp.2020.0033.
Gallopı
´n, G. 1991. Human dimensions of global change: Linking the
global and the local processes. International Social Science
Journal 43: 707–718.
Goulding, W., P.T. Moss, and C.A. McAlpine. 2016. Cascading
effects of cyclones on the biodiversity of Southwest Pacific
islands. Biological Conservation 193: 143–152. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.11.022.
Hanich, Q., C.C.C. Wabnitz, Y. Ota, M. Amos, C. Donato-Hunt, and
A. Hunt. 2018. Small-scale fisheries under climate change in the
Pacific Islands region. Marine Policy 88: 279–284. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.011.
Hau’ofa, E. 1993. Our sea of islands. In A New Oceania: Rediscov-
ering our Sea of Islands, eds. E. Waddell, V. Naidu, and E.
Hau’ofa, 2-18. Suva: School of Social and Economic Develop-
ment, University of the South Pacific.
Hau’ofa, E. 2008. We are the ocean: Selected works. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Ihara, E., and H. Vakalahi. 2011. Spirituality: The essence of wellness
among Tongan and Samoan elders. Journal of Religion &
Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought 30: 405–421. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15426432.2011.619916.
Latai-Niusulu, A., T. Binns, and E. Nel. 2020. Climate change and
community resilience in Samoa. Singapore Journal of Tropical
Geography 41: 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12299.
123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021
www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Mackean, T. 2009. A healed and healthy country: Understanding
healing for Indigenous Australians. Medical Journal of Australia
190: 522–523. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.
tb02545.x.
Magee, L., J. Handmer, T. Neale, and M. Ladds. 2016. Locating the
intangible: Integrating a sense of place into cost estimations of
natural disasters. Geoforum 77: 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2016.09.018.
Manuela, S., and C.G. Sibley. 2013. The Pacific Identity and
Wellbeing Scale (PIWBS): A culturally-appropriate self-report
measure for Pacific peoples in New Zealand. Social Indicators
Research 112: 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-
0041-9.
Manuela, S., and C.G. Sibley. 2015. The Pacific Identity and
Wellbeing Scale-Revised (PIWBS-R). Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology 21: 146–155. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0037536.
McKendrick, J., R. Brooks, J. Hudson, M. Thorpe, and P. Bennett.
n.d. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healing Programs: A
Literature Review, Healing Foundation, Barton, ACT. Retrieved
29 March, 2021, from https://healingfoundation.org.au/app/
uploads/2017/02/Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-Healing-
Programs-A-Literature-Review.pdf.
McNamara, K.E., R. Westoby, and A. Chandra. 2021a. Exploring
climate-driven non-economic loss and damage in the Pacific
Islands. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 50:
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.07.004.
McNamara, K.E., R. Westoby, R. Clissold, and A. Chandra. 2021b.
Understanding and responding to climate-driven non-economic
loss and damage in the Pacific Islands. Climate Risk Manage-
ment 33: 100336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100336.
McNamara, K.E., and G. Jackson. 2019. Loss and damage: A review
of the literature and directions for future research. Wires Climate
Change 10: e564. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.564.
McShane, K. 2017. Values and harms in loss and damage. Ethics,
Policy & Environment 20: 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21550085.2017.1342960.
Morrissey, J., and A. Oliver-Smith. 2013. Perspectives on noneco-
nomic loss and damage: Understanding values at risk from
climate change. In Loss and Damage in Vulnerable Countries
Initiative Report, eds. K. Warner, and S. Kreft. https://doi.org/10.
13140/RG.2.1.1668.1041.
Movono, A., H. Dahles, and S. Becken. 2017. Fijian culture and the
environment: a focus on the ecological and social interconnect-
edness of tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
26: 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1359280.
Mustonen, T. 2013. Rebirth of Indigenous Arctic Nations and polar
resource management: Critical perspectives from Siberia and
Sa
´mi areas of Finland. Biodiversity 14: 19–27. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14888386.2012.725652.
Pearce, T., R. Currenti, A. Mateiwai, and B. Doran. 2018. Adaptation
to climate change and freshwater resources in Vusama village,
Viti Levu, Fiji. Regional Environmental Change 18: 501–510.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1222-5.
Preston, B.L., K. Dow, and F. Berkhout. 2013. The climate adaptation
FrontierThe Climate Adaptation Frontier. Sustainability 5:
1011–1035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5031011.
Sattler, D.N. 2017. Climate change and extreme weather events: the
mental health impact. In Climate Change Adaptation in Pacific
Countries, eds. W. Leal Filho, 73–85. Cham: Springer.
Spires, M., S. Shackleton, and G. Cundill. 2014. Barriers to
implementing planned community-based adaptation in develop-
ing countries: A systematic literature review. Climate and
Development 6: 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.
2014.886995.
SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Pro-
gramme). 2020. Valuing the Ocean: Pacific Blue Economy.
Retrieved 29 March, 2021, from https://www.sprep.org/
attachments/Publications/FactSheet/Oceans/valuing-ocean-
pacific-blue-economy.pdf
Steiner, C.E. 2015. A sea of warriors: Performing an identity of
resilience and empowerment in the face of climate change in the
Pacific. The Contemporary Pacific 27: 147–180. https://doi.org/
10.1353/cp.2015.0002.
Tamasese, T. 2007. Bio-ethics and the Samoan indigenous reference.
International Social Science Journal 60: 115–124. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2009.01705.x.
Thomas, A., and L. Benjamin. 2020. Non-economic loss and damage:
Lessons from displacement in the Caribbean. Climate Policy 20:
715–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1640105.
Tschakert, P., N.R. Ellis, C. Anderson, A. Kelly, and J. Obeng. 2019.
One thousand ways to experience loss: A systematic analysis of
climate-related intangible harm from around the world. Global
Environmental Change 55: 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2018.11.006.
Thomas, A.S., S. Mangubhai, C. Vandervord, M. Fox, and Y. Nand.
2019. Impact of Tropical Cyclone Winston on women mud crab
fishers in Fiji. Climate and Development 11: 699–709. https://
doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1547677.
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change). 2013. Non-Economic Losses in the Context of the
Work Programme on Loss and Damage. UNFCCC, United
Nations, Bonn.
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change). 2018. Climate Change Is a Major Multiplier of
Disaster Losses. Retrieved 29 March, 2021, from https://
unfccc.int/news/climate-change-is-a-major-multiplier-of-
disaster-losses
van der Geest, K., M. Burkett, J. Fitzpatrick, M. Stege, and B.
Wheeler. 2020. Climate change, ecosystem services and migra-
tion in the Marshall Islands: Are they related? Climatic Change
161: 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02648-7.
Westoby, R., K.E. McNamara, and R. Clissold. 2021. Ways of
healing in the Anthropocene. Climate and Development.https://
doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1881425.
Williams, T., and P. Hardison. 2014. Culture, law, risk, and
governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change
adaptation. In Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples in the
United States: Impacts, Experience and Actions, ed. J.K.
Maldonado, B. Colombi, and R. Pandya, 23–36. Cham: Springer.
Yazzie, J., P. Fule
´, Y.-S. Kim, and A. Sa
´nchez Meador. 2019. Dine
´
kinship as a framework for conserving native tree species in
climate change. Ecological Applications 29 : e01944. https://doi.
org/10.1002/eap.1944.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Ross Westoby (&) is a Research Fellow at Griffith University’s
Climate Action Beacon. His research interests include the intersec-
tionality between society and environment, with a particular interest
in climate loss and adaptation across the South Pacific and in Aus-
tralia.
Address: Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University, Nathan,
Brisbane, Australia.
e-mail: r.westoby@griffith.edu.au
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
Rachel Clissold is a Senior Research Assistant in the School of Earth
and Environmental Sciences at The University of Queensland. Her
research interests include climate change adaptation, gender and
development more generally.
Address: School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The Univer-
sity of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia.
e-mail: r.clissold@uq.edu.au
Karen E. McNamara is an Associate Professor in human geography
in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at The University
of Queensland. Her research interests include resilient livelihoods,
climate change adaptation, non-economic loss and recovery, human
mobility and gender.
Address: School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The Univer-
sity of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia.
e-mail: karen.mcnamara@uq.edu.au
Anita Latai-Niusulu is the Head of the Department of Social Sci-
ences at the National University of Samoa. Her research interests
include islanders’ resilience and survival strategies, climate change
and other environmental challenges affecting islanders, sustainability,
environmental governance/ management, urban and children’s
geographies.
Address: Department of Social Sciences, National University of
Samoa, Apia, Samoa.
e-mail: a.latai@nus.edu.ws
Alvin Chandra is an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow in the School
of Earth and Environmental Sciences at The University of Queens-
land. His research interests include loss and damage, small island
developing states, and UN Climate mechanisms.
Address: United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
e-mail: alvin.chandra@un.org; a.chandra@uq.edu.au
123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021
www.kva.se/en
Ambio
