The role of Vanua in climate-related voluntary immobility in Fiji

Abstract

People, communities, and regions around the world are being pushed to adapt as climate-related risks increase. Within both policy and academic literature, the planned relocation of communities is often viewed as an adaptation option of last resort, given that it can lead to losses including attachment to place, place-based cultural practices, and identity. To date, however, few empirical studies have investigated the diverse and context-specific reasons for community reluctance to relocate. This study aimed to examine the motivations behind people's decisions to remain in locations at risk from climate change. Drawing on ethnographic data from fieldwork undertaken in 2021 in Serua Island, Fiji, this study shows how the concept of Vanua, a Fijian term that refers to the natural environment, social bonds and kinship ties, ways of being, spirituality, and stewardship, is used by Indigenous people to resist climate-driven relocation. Through exploring local decision-making, this study contributes to the small body of research on voluntary immobility in the context of climate change. This research also contributes to academic discussions on “decolonizing climate change” from a Pacific perspective while offering a strong empirical basis for critically addressing climate mobility scholarship through Indigenous narratives, values, and worldviews. We highlight that policy and practice must better integrate local understandings of voluntary immobility to avoid potential maladaptation and loss and damage to culture, livelihoods, and social networks. This can help develop more appropriate adaptation strategies for communities in Fiji and beyond as people move, but also resist mobility, in a warming world.

Full text

TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 23 December 2022
DOI 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Koko Warner,
UNFCCC, Germany
REVIEWED BY
Christopher Lyon,
University of York, United Kingdom
Kieran James,
University of the West of Scotland,
United Kingdom
Dalila Gharbaoui,
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Andreas Neef,
The University of Auckland,
New Zealand
*CORRESPONDENCE
Merewalesi Yee
merewalesi.yee@uqconnect.edu.au
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to
Climate Mobility,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Climate
RECEIVED 02 September 2022
ACCEPTED 25 November 2022
PUBLISHED 23 December 2022
CITATION
Yee M, McNamara KE,
Piggott-McKellar AE and McMichael C
(2022) The role of Vanua in
climate-related voluntary immobility in
Fiji. Front. Clim. 4:1034765.
doi: 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
COPYRIGHT
©2022 Yee, McNamara,
Piggott-McKellar and McMichael. This
is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction
in other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) and the copyright
owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is
cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which
does not comply with these terms.
The role of Vanua in
climate-related voluntary
immobility in Fiji
Merewalesi Yee1*, Karen E. McNamara1,
Annah E. Piggott-McKellar2and Celia McMichael3
1School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD,
Australia, 2School of Architecture and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 3School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of
Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
People, communities, and regions around the world are being pushed to adapt
as climate-related risks increase. Within both policy and academic literature,
the planned relocation of communities is often viewed as an adaptation
option of last resort, given that it can lead to losses including attachment
to place, place-based cultural practices, and identity. To date, however, few
empirical studies have investigated the diverse and context-specific reasons
for community reluctance to relocate. This study aimed to examine the
motivations behind people’s decisions to remain in locations at risk from
climate change. Drawing on ethnographic data from fieldwork undertaken
in 2021 in Serua Island, Fiji, this study shows how the concept of Vanua, a
Fijian term that refers to the natural environment, social bonds and kinship
ties, ways of being, spirituality, and stewardship, is used by Indigenous
people to resist climate-driven relocation. Through exploring local decision-
making, this study contributes to the small body of research on voluntary
immobility in the context of climate change. This research also contributes
to academic discussions on “decolonizing climate change” from a Pacific
perspective while oering a strong empirical basis for critically addressing
climate mobility scholarship through Indigenous narratives, values, and
worldviews. We highlight that policy and practice must better integrate local
understandings of voluntary immobility to avoid potential maladaptation and
loss and damage to culture, livelihoods, and social networks. This can help
develop more appropriate adaptation strategies for communities in Fiji and
beyond as people move, but also resist mobility, in a warming world.
KEYWORDS
voluntary immobility, Vanua, adaptation, Fiji, decolonizing climate change,
indigenous people, sense of place, stewardship
1. Introduction
“I told them the history of Serua island from the beginning of time when this island
was first settled, the forefathers walked, swam, and rowed across these waters to the
island and vice versa to the mainland. From then until now, people continued to do
that. I believe that my forefathers landing here on Serua island is God’s purpose. Climate
Frontiers in Climate 01 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
change is taking me away from my identity and my belief in
God. The biggest question that kept popping into my mind was
that ‘how can we protect the identity and land that born and
bred the children of Serua island?” (83-year-old woman of
Serua Island).
The climate on Earth is changing due to human activity,
which is increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and
irreversible impacts on people and ecosystems (IPCC, 2022).
In response, people are putting in place a range of adaptation
measures to respond to both experienced and anticipated
impacts. One such adaptation response is the planned relocation
of people away from sites of climate-related risk. Planned
relocation (otherwise referred to as climate-related relocation,
resettlement, or retreat) is increasingly recognized in policy and
practice as a form of disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation (Carey, 2020) with a small but growing number
of case studies emerging from around the world. Climate-
related relocation is defined as a process whereby populations
and infrastructure are relocated to a new place in response to
climate exposure. It is a heterogeneous process and can take
many forms depending on the following factors: the portion
of the community that relocates (whole or partial); whether
the relocation is in anticipation of, or in response to, climate
risks (preemptive or reactive); who manages the process (locally
driven, externally implemented, or ad hoc); and the degree of
agency (forced or voluntary) (Albert et al., 2017;McMichael and
Katonivualiku, 2020;Piggott-McKellar and McMichael, 2021).
Relocation away from sites of high climate change-related
risk is not an inevitable response. Instances of more fluid and
nuanced mobility, including into areas of increased climate
exposure, have emerged (McMichael et al., 2021;Farbotko,
2022), as well as populations remaining in places of risk,
defined as immobility. Immobile populations were recognized
in the seminal Foresight report as a significant challenge when
planning for climate-related population mobility (Foresight,
2011). Immobility is a diverse and complex phenomenon (Adey,
2006). While immobile populations are originally viewed as
“trapped” (Ayeb-Karlsson et al., 2018), there is now a growing
understanding of the spectrum from “trapped” populations
to voluntary immobility. Notably, there are emerging cases
of communities refusing and resisting relocation plans and
deciding to stay in places of belonging (Farbotko et al., 2020;
McMichael et al., 2021). Understanding voluntary immobility
in areas of growing coastal risk exposure necessitates taking
into account the complexity of human experience and behavior
(Adams and Kay, 2019). Social science accounts are needed
that explore factors affecting people’s decisions to remain in the
places they call “home” (Wiegel et al., 2019;Ayeb-Karlsson et al.,
2020).
This article examines people’s motivations to remain in
sites where there is, or is expected to be, high exposure
to climate-related impacts, even when there is government
support for relocation. In doing so, this paper contributes to
emergent research on voluntary immobility in the context of
climate change (Black et al., 2013;Adams, 2016;Wiederkehr
et al., 2019;Mallick and Schanze, 2020). We focus on Fiji, a
nation where more than 800 communities have been recognized
by the government as being at risk from sea-level rise and
associated impacts, and in need of the state and/or donor-
supported adaptation and relocation (Neef et al., 2018;GIZ,
2019;McMichael et al., 2019). Despite significant coastal erosion
and flooding over the last two decades, Serua Island residents in
Fiji have chosen to remain and regard their island as a source
of pride and as critical to their identity. While this research has
limitations in being a single case study, lessons from location-
based, context-specific research can add important insights into
broader circumstances that foster or restrict adaptive capacity
(Nielsen and Reenberg, 2010;Njie and Asimiran, 2014;Gaikwad,
2018). We argue that incorporating local understandings of
climate-related voluntary immobility in climate adaptation
policy formation is critically important.
2. Literature review
Within environmental and climate mobilities research, early
theories argued that as environmental impacts were increasingly
experienced, out-migration would occur (Barnett and Webber,
2010;Adams, 2016). Migration has been recognized by
researchers and policy-makers as a strategy to reduce risks,
either by moving away from dangerous places or by diversifying
family livelihoods and income through migration of household
members (Foresight, 2011;Klepp, 2017;Adger et al., 2018;
Wiegel et al., 2019). Indeed, migration has long been used
as a strategy in response to environmental, social, and
other perturbations.
In more recent times, there has been a growing awareness,
interest, and research into immobilities and complex mobilities,
whereby people remain or even move into regions of high risk
(Schewel, 2020). As Stockdale and Haartsen (2018) have argued,
the emerging focus on immobility dismantles assumptions that
migration is novel whereas setting down roots and remaining
in place is normal. These newer framings and areas of research
interest examine complex and context-specific decision-making
and nuanced (im)mobilities (De Sherbinin et al., 2022).
Within growing immobilities research, attention has been
given to the ways the poor and powerless are forced to
stay, portraying their immobility as involuntary because of
socioeconomic barriers to their freedom, despite desires to move
(Faist, 2013;Glick Schiller and Salazar, 2013). For example,
research with nonmigrant households in Oaxaca, Mexico, and
with farmers of arid regions of Peru has highlighted a lack
of capacity to migrate due to both financial limitations and
Frontiers in Climate 02 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
commitments in places of residence (Cohen, 2002;Adams, 2016;
Adams and Kay, 2019).
As well as documented cases of involuntary immobility
(otherwise referred to as “trapped” populations), there are also
many people who do not migrate because they do not want to
(Schewel, 2020;Amin et al., 2021). Examples of immobility in
sites of environmental and climatic risk are emerging globally.
Rural youth in Honduras has adopted immobility as a means of
ensuring livelihoods in a setting with high rates of emigration
(Wyngaarden et al., 2022). Older residents in Tangier and
Tinghir, Morocco, do not consider migration to be an option
as they are settled and have well-established social and family
networks (Van Praag, 2021). Mata-Codesal (2015) conducted
research in rural Ecuador and found that immobility can be
involuntary or voluntary, depending on the contexts of people’s
lives. As such, policies and initiatives promoting out-migration
as an adaptation to climate change are not always accepted by
people and populations.
Trapped populations have drawn attention because they are
considered particularly vulnerable. However, if the voluntary
immobile is not adequately informed about mobility options or
future risks, they may also face growing vulnerabilities (Zickgraf,
2018). Accordingly, immobility is considered voluntary when it
is not due to the lack of capacity or resources, when the option
of mobility exists, and when potential migrants are sufficiently
informed regarding their (im)mobility options (Ottonelli and
Torresi, 2013). This article conceptualizes voluntary immobility
as proposed by Farbotko and McMichael (2019, p. 150) as
“an informed, freely indicated preference to remain in sites
where there is, or is expected to be, high vulnerability to
environmental risk”.
In order to prevent “mobility fetishism” (Canzler et al.,
2008, p. 2) and to keep in mind that migration may not be a
practical adaptation strategy for some groups, it is important
to study voluntary immobility for many reasons. For example,
remaining in place through times of environmental change may
allow people to use and develop Indigenous local knowledge in
coping with hazards in the future (Farbotko and McMichael,
2019). Local knowledge is based on historical experiences and
shapes the ways people adapt by providing solutions to their
emerging environmental problems (Lahiri-Dutt and Samanta,
2007). In addition, there is still a lack of empirical studies
demonstrating the effectiveness of migration and relocation as
effective climate adaptation strategies (Upadhyay and Mohan,
2017). For example, in addition to reducing vulnerabilities to
climate-related hazards and enhancing the quality of life for
Pacific Island communities, research conducted by Bordner
et al. (2020) from the Marshall Islands emphasizes that climate-
related relocation planning should protect lineage ties, prevent
loss of cultural identity, and preserve local knowledge for
future generations.
Place attachment provides a crucial foundation
for understanding immobility preferences and choices
(Stockdale et al., 2018). Place attachment can be defined as the
bonds to places of residence that people hold both socially and
physically (Scannell and Gifford, 2010). As such, it fosters a sense
of community or belonging founded on affections, cognitions,
and practices (Gustafson, 2006), and it is frequently entwined
with social elements and memories as well as perceived and
natural facilities (Stockdale et al., 2018). Blondin (2021) detailed
how in the Bartang Valley in Tajikistan—an area exposed to
environmental hazards such as flooding, rockslides, landslides,
and avalanches—the Bartangis’ attachment to place influenced
their preference for immobility. In Togoru, a low-lying coastal
settlement on Viti Levu Island, Fiji, despite facing significant
coastal impacts in the form of coastal erosion, tidal inundation,
and saltwater intrusion, residents are opposing plans for
relocation, owing to place-belongingness to land and people
created through personal, historic and ancestral, relational,
cultural, economic, and legal connections (Yee et al., 2022).
2.1. Contextualizing the Fijian setting
Fiji is described as a multicultural society (Robertson, 2000),
but the majority of the population is comprised of two major
ethnic groups: Indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians, the majority
of whom were descendants of indentured laborers with a later
wave who came independently to start businesses and trade
in Fiji (Chand, 2015). Under the new decree by the Fiji First
government, policies have been implemented that aim to address
Fiji’s colonial legacies and unite the country under one Fijian
identity (Fraenkel and Firth, 2009). All citizens of Fiji are known
as Fijians. Indigenous Fijians are referred to as iTaukei, and
other ethnicities are to be referred to as Fijians of their ethnic
descent (e.g., Fijian of Indian descent). About one-third of
the population is Fijians of Indian descent, and most of the
remaining population is iTaukei (DFAT, 2022).
There are 1,171 registered Indigenous Fijian villages in Fiji
(Ministry of iTaukei Affairs, 2022). Vanua is essential to one’s
identity and existence as the core of one’s being and the essence
of what it means to be an Indigenous Fijian. Fanua (Samoan),
Fonua (Tongan), Fenua (Tahitian), and Whenua (Maori) have
parallel meanings with the Indigenous Fijian Vanua, relating
to the foundation of life on earth (Tuwere, 2002). Vanua has
both literal and figurative connotations. Both are intricately
connected. Vanua is a land-based language. It is very broad in
scope involving the natural terrain, local flora and fauna, rivers,
mountains, fishing sites, and more. Although Vanua is literally
translated as “land”, iTaukei does not see land as a commodity
that can be bought in the sense of the market economy (Farrelly,
2010). This is reflected in the phrase “Na qau vanua”, which
means “not my land” but rather “the land to which I belong,
of which I am an integral part: the land that is part of me and
sustains me” (Roth, 1973, p. xxvii). In addition to providing a
means of livelihood, the land also serves as a foundation for life
Frontiers in Climate 03 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
(Tuwere, 2002). Indigenous Fijians do not think of themself as
belonging within certain frontiers but as originating from the
place where the founder ancestor landed after which the land
was named. I cavuti is the Fijian term for this, as noted by
Tuwere (2002, p. 49) who claims that “one does not own the
land; rather the land owns him.” Without its occupants, the land
is comparable to a body without a soul.
Given the value of land to Indigenous Fijians, the British
colonists implemented a system of customary land tenure that
aligned with traditional Indigenous Fijian values including the
inalienability of land from Indigenous Fijians, the collective
ownership of rights to land, the registration of individuals to the
land of their forefathers and ownership cannot be transferred to
non-Indigenous Fijians or nonmembers of the landowning unit
(Mataqali) (Kamikamica, 1987;Boydell, 2008;Sakai, 2016). Land
in Fiji is classified under three categories: Native (Customary)
Land (83%), Freehold (8%), and Crown or State Land (9%); the
majority of the land is native land or land that is communally
owned by Indigenous Fijians (Lal et al., 2001;Rakai et al., 2013).
Each Indigenous Fijian member is a part of the Vanua,
a hierarchical social group. The I Tokatoka (subclan) is the
smallest unit. The Mataqali (clan) is above this, followed by
the Yavusa (tribe). Several Yavusa come together to form
a sociopolitical group known as the Vanua, which honors
a prominent chief and is bound together by a variety of
persistently reaffirmed social and political ties. For a child
from an Indigenous Fijian community, the Vanua acts as
their classroom (Nabobo-Baba, 2008). The youngster learns the
value of identity, traditional kinship roles, and responsibilities
to family, community, and self (Lagi and Armstrong, 2017).
The Vanua serves as the setting for many learning processes.
Through interactions with Vanua, a Fijian learns the principle
and practice of sharing and caring (Ghasarian, 1996).
The Vanua is also referred to by Nayacakalou (1975) and
Lasaqa (1984) as a decision-making group for traditional affairs
and the foundation of traditional leadership. Both make a
distinction between community activities that are planned by
the Turaga ni koro (representative of the government) and
traditional activities that are under the control of the Turaga
ni vanua (senior member of the Vanua by descent) and are
set up in accordance with the traditional social and kinship
structures that exist between and within the Vanua. The former
activities include raising money for local development projects
and upholding governmental regulations; the latter includes
implementing and maintaining ritual and ceremonial events (see
Ravuvu, 1988).
Vanua is a notion that encompasses a wide range of related
meanings. As a result, Vanua represents more than only the
physical concept of land. Vanua also refers to members of social
groups whose values, knowledge, skills, spiritual beliefs, and
customs play a significant role in their day-to-day interactions
and influence how their kinship system functions (Nayacakalou,
1955;Ravuvu, 1983;Nabobo-Baba, 2006). Fijian kinship is
developed through patrilineal descent and common parentage
(Nayacakalou, 1955) and permeates all clans, villages, and tribes
(Torren, 1999). Kinship ties people together in a mutually
dependent relationship (Randin, 2018) even with those who
are physically a part of the same Vanua but are not biological
relatives (Ravuvu, 1983).
Vanua, however, represents for Indigenous Fijians not only
kinship relations but also a connection and interdependence
between nature and society, much like in most Melanesia, and
neither of these realms is separate from spirit (Foale, 2006). The
phrase “the way of the land,” or Fijian customs and values, is
called Vakavanua. To live happily in both this world and the
afterlife, according to Ravuvu (1987), one must uphold Vanua’s
beliefs and ideals. A key component of the connection that
Vanua creates with the ancestors, who continue to be an almost
physical part of the community, is with those who have come
before. “It is where the ancestors preceded them and where these
spirits linger and watch over the affairs of those who follow”
(Ravuvu, 1988, p. 6). The iTaukei are nested in relationships
among and between people, spirits, and environment, which
is visible in their everyday routines from the organization of
the community to agricultural cultivation and narration of
traditions and recollections of ancestors (Tuwere, 2002;Gelves-
Gómez and Brincat, 2021). As a result, the Vanua is central to
elements of life in iTaukei society (Nabobo-Baba, 2006). Vanua is
therefore an expansive concept, and life is viewed by Indigenous
Fijians through this prism.
In addition, Vanua is not a tradeable good since, as Ravuvu
(1988) highlighted, a land without inhabitants is comparable
to a person devoid of a soul. Indigenous Fijian people are
therefore a part of their physical surroundings, and this link
is where their Mana, or power, comes from. As the land is
“an extension of the self. . . [and] the people are an extension
of the land,” Vanua refers to a deeply rooted, embedded
bodily politic (Ravuvu, 1983, p. 76). In sum, Vanua is a
connected, contingent, relational, dynamic, dialogic, embedded,
and embodied concept that connects people, place, and spirit
(Huffer and Qalo, 2004). Vanua has the potential to help
our understanding of people’s spatial and social responses to
climate change.
3. Method and study sites
3.1. Method
This research primarily drew on qualitative research
undertaken over a period of 4 weeks during September and
October 2021. Data were collected from Serua Island, as well
as Talenaua and Dogowale settlements. This included both
Talanoa sessions and interviews. A purposive sampling method
was employed to identify participants for both semi-structured
interviews and Talanoa. Talanoa is an inclusive and transparent
Frontiers in Climate 04 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
face-to-face dialogue or exchange of ideas in a culturally
appropriate way of seeking transformative solutions on a topic
of local significance that is used in Pacific cultures in everyday
interactions. Many Pacific Island countries, including Tonga,
Fiji, Samoa, and Tokelau, are familiar with the idea of Talanoa,
which has its roots in oral traditions (Feetham et al., 2022).
Integrating Indigenous research methods and knowledge can
give communities a stronger stake in knowledge generation,
including in climate risk and adaptation (Nabobo-Baba, 2006;
Vaioleti, 2013). This can provide significant insights into
community values and challenges and support improved policy,
practice, and investments for climate-affected communities.
Talanoa was used in the primary stages of fieldwork to
understand community perspectives and life (Aswani and Lauer,
2006;Lauer and Aswani, 2010;Buggy and McNamara, 2016).
These Talanoa sessions also helped to identify people within
the community who would be valuable to talk to individually
(Bloor et al., 2001). The communal lifestyle and culture of
Fijian are centered on Talanoa, which is compatible with their
worldviews and attitudes (Feetham et al., 2022). Talanoa enabled
an environment of storytelling, which in turn encouraged others
to remember and describe their stories as well. One of the
unique strengths of group-based discussion and dialogue is that
it allows participants to query each other, demonstrating a level
of agreement or disagreement with the group (Morgan, 1996;
Kidd and Parshall, 2000).
Five Talanoa were held in Serua village and Talenaua
settlement. Each discussion had between 4 and 10 participants
and took approximately 1–1.5 h each. A questionnaire guide
was used by the researcher to facilitate the Talanoa discussion.
The participants adhere to the Talanoa principles of openness,
sharing, respect, and trust (Prescott, 2008). In this regard,
Talanoa creates a space where participants can identify their
experiences and problems and develop solutions that are fit
for their environment and culturally appropriate while also
enabling the researcher to connect with them and understand
their situation from their perspectives and the realities they face
(Vaioleti, 2006;Nainoca, 2011;Vaka et al., 2016). Some Talanoa
may be more formal than others, while the very formal may be
conducted with Yaqona (i.e., kava) being served (Nabobo-Baba,
2006). However, even the more formally organized Talanoa
still carries a measure of relaxed informality that is engaging
and inclusive. Key themes for discussion included climate-
related risks, adaptation measures including relocation, values,
and religion. These discussions were undertaken in English
and iTaukei languages. In addition to interviews with village
residents, interviews with two government representatives were
undertaken to understand government perspectives on planned
relocation and climate-related risks in the province. Interviews
and Talanoa were digitally audio-recorded, and notes were taken
throughout the data collection.
Semi-structured interviews were also used; this is culturally
appropriate in Fiji because storytelling through verbal
communication or Talanoa is an everyday practice. An
interview guide was designed and organized into themed
sections, including open-ended questions to allow participants
to tell their stories and elaborate on key issues (Bourke, 2014).
The themes of the interview guide were socio-demographic
questions, values, (im)mobilities, observations and changes
to their environment, and adaptation and planned relocation.
A total of 23 semi-structured interviews were held (11 in
Serua village, seven in Talenaua, three in Dogowale, and
two in government representatives). Snowballing techniques
were employed to unearth referrals for potential interview
participants. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 83 years. The
interviews were conducted in settings that were comfortable for
participants, such as in their homes, community halls, boats,
and around the village green, and lasted 30–45 min. With the
permission of participants, interviews were audio-recorded for
later transcription and analysis.
Transect walks enabled the researcher to observe how the
participants related to their environment and understand how
they experienced changes over time. While interviews and
Talanoa discussions focused on talking and listening to people,
participant observation enabled “watching, sensing, feeling, and
being present with the people” (Aagaard and Matthiesen, 2016,
p. 41).
Following transcription, data were inputted into and
analyzed using NVivo software. Key themes were identified
from the data. Following this, a rereading and refining of the
specifics of each theme were done to establish a detailed thematic
framework for data analysis (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). An
independent third party was enlisted to assist in the translation
and verification of crucial terms because the initial part of the
paper includes Fijian vernacular excerpts.
The project received Human Research Ethics clearance
through the [withheld for review] (number [withheld for
review]). Ethical protocols included gaining informed consent
to participate in this study and to undertake and record Talanoa
and interviews. The Government of Fiji granted a research
permit, and the local government and the Serua village elders
gave their approval and support for the research.
3.2. Study sites
Off Viti Levu’s southern shore is the island of Serua. Serua
village is located about 3 kilometers from a junction on the
Queens Highway, a gritty road that leads to the coast, and an
almost 2-h drive from Suva, the capital city of Fiji. The island can
be reached via private outboard-powered fiberglass boat, or by
walking at low tide. Serua’s name is a combination of the words
“Se,” which means flower, and “Rua,” which means two. The
village is neatly spread out on the grassy space between two hills
that form the island’s pommel and cantel, giving the island the
appearance of a saddle from a distance (Mitchell, 2022). Serua
Frontiers in Climate 05 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
Island is culturally significant to the people of Serua province as
it is the seat or permanent residence of the paramount chief of
the province “Turaga na Vunivalu” (chiefly title). Figure 1 shows
the location of Serua Island, Dogowale, and Talenaua.
According to the Fiji 2017 census, Serua village has a
population of 95 people (FBOS, 2017). At the time of fieldwork,
however, there were 21 households with a total of 125 people.
Some residents have left Serua village to settle elsewhere such as
their Talenaua (customary land near their plantations); however,
a majority have remained; some had worked for years in other
parts of Fiji or overseas and returned, and some were living and
working elsewhere yet had returned to visit families.
Rainfall is the primary source of water on the island. Piped
water from the mainland reservoir is used for bathing, washing,
and toilets. Boats, nets, and fishing expertise are crucial because
fishing is the primary source of income. Some villagers work
in the tourism, education, and nonprofit sectors, while others
own businesses. Remittances from family living overseas and
in cities also help with daily expenses. There are numerous
committees and gatherings in the village, including water,
health, environment, religion, women, and youth, Bose Vakoro
(development of the village), Bose Vanua (cultural aspect of the
Vanua), and Bose ni Lotu (spiritual activities), that contribute to
the wellbeing of the villagers.
The island of Serua is exposed to climate-related risks.
Over the past two decades, Serua has been repeatedly flooded
and experienced impacts from saltwater intrusion, making the
soil less fertile. The Government of Fiji has prohibited the
construction of houses near water, because of the damage
caused by cyclones and storm surges. While the government had
identified the island population as needing to relocate, most of
the island inhabitants choose not to leave due to their strong
cultural attachment to the island and its historical significance
to the province of Serua.
Importantly, in earlier times, Serua village has fractured
into three communities: Talenaua, Dogowale, and those that
remained on Serua Island. Close to Serua Island—on the
mainland—are the settlements of Dogowale (pop. 20) and
Talenaua (pop. 325). Residents of Dogowale moved from Serua
Island, albeit while remaining on customary land; Talenaua is a
farming settlement with strong connections to villagers living on
Serua Island.
4. Results
4.1. History of ad hoc relocation
Mobility has always been a part of life for the people of
Serua province, with people moving for various reasons. The
settlement of Serua Island from the highlands of Viti Levu
occurred in the 19th century and was associated with economic
and political interests. For example, the decision to leave was in
search of new land and possibilities. As they descended to the
coast, they engaged in wars in the process, until they reached
Serua Island. “Serua island was already inhabited however,
through strategic negotiation, the powerful Vunivalu (Paramount
Chief) lived with the first settlers on the island” (Serua village,
Interview). To date, the island of Serua has been regarded as the
traditional seat of the paramount chief. In addition, Serua Island
was where the first school, hospital, and provincial office were
built in Serua province, indicating the importance and prestige
of the island at the time. These services were later moved to
Viti Levu mainland in the 1940s and 1950s. Around this time,
some residents from Serua Island also began to independently
relocate their households to Talenaua and Dogowale settlements,
on Viti Levu. Residents that relocated during this time had to
seek permission from the Vunivalu (Chief of Serua province) to
relocate and occupy their current places of residence.
Dogowale is located at the edge of Viti Levu Island,
across from Serua Island. The settlement of Dogowale has six
houses (two of which are vacant) with a population of <20.
The households belong to one Mataqali (subclan), Raralevu.
Their traditional role is the Sau-Turaga (kingmaker—and can
temporarily hold the chiefly position until one is installed). The
people of Dogowale rely heavily on fishing and subsistence for
their livelihoods. Despite their relocation from Serua Island in
the 1980s, there was a strong preference to remain close to the
island. The move to their present site from Serua Island was
precipitated by longing for easier access to transport and access
to other services including education and health, and a sense
of insecurity due to climate-related impacts on the island such
as saltwater intrusion, coastal erosion, and flooding. “Today, my
grandchildren catch the school bus in front of our house. During
our time, to travel from the island to school daily is not easy,
especially when we did not have a boat and when it rained”
(Dogowale, Interview). Moving to Dogowale was not an easy
choice for its residents because of strong affinities and ties to
the island. However, due to the close proximity of the relocation
site, families residing in Dogowale today are still able to visit the
island and can view it from their homes, maintaining a sense of
intimacy and connection. “We prefer to stay close to the island
to be present for all functions for the church, government, and
province. Any government official or visitors will come to Serua
island to pay their respect” (Dogowale, Interview).
Talenaua settlement is located along the Queens Highway.
Talenaua (“Tale” meaning reach, and “Naua” meaning tide)
settlement is accessible via both road and boat. Talenaua is
a larger settlement and has a total population of 325 people
as compared to 178 people in the 2017 census report (FBOS,
2017). There are two Mataqali (subclan) that reside in Talenaua.
The settlement began as a farming community for Serua
Island’s residents and was home to plantations, where families
could remain in makeshift huts while they worked the land.
Because Talenaua had more resources than Serua Island and
provided better access to critical services such as health centers,
Frontiers in Climate 06 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
FIGURE 1
Map identifying Serua Island, Dogowale, and Talenaua (prepared by Chandra Jayasuriya).
Frontiers in Climate 07 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
schools, government offices, supermarkets, and jobs on the
mainland, some households from Serua Island eventually made
this farming community their permanent home. Due to the close
proximity to road infrastructure, the residents of Talenaua could
grow and sell their produce along the roadside. “Youths have
a collective farm and then youths have their individual farms.
Taro, vegetables, cassava, etc., we sell at the roadside. One can go
anywhere at any time because this highway is always busy with
motorists” (Talenaua, Interview).
However, Talenaua is a settlement that is part of Serua Island.
Despite being on the mainland, Talenaua is not immune to
coastal impacts. When there is heavy rain along with high tides,
flooding becomes a major problem. This is exemplified through
the following quote from a Talenaua resident: “I used to hear
from my elders this is the mark where the waves from the ocean
reach and return to the ocean. . . today the high tide goes all the
way up to those living on the other side of the road affecting
the land” (Talenaua, Interview). The settlement area is located
on ground that was reclaimed so that the highway could be
constructed. Because of this, the land structure is not stable,
and when large vehicles pass by the settlement on the highway,
people feel the ground trembling. All church events used to take
place on Serua Island, but this is no longer the case. This is
practical for Talenaua’s residents, but some claim it has weakened
their ties to their ancestral homes on Serua Island.
4.2. Experiences of climatic and
environmental change in Serua village
Residents perceive climate change to have negatively altered
fish stocks. “Dairo (sea cucumber) and Veata (sea hare) we hardly
see now. Lumi (seaweed) sometimes it appears sometimes it does
not” (Women FG, Serua village). Overall, the village people
note that fish stocks are declining, and the villagers have sought
assistance from the Ministry of Fisheries to find ways to cope
with these changes. “The community needs to go further out
toward the reef to catch fish” (Serua village, Interview).
Coastal erosion is also a significant problem in Serua village.
The village elders had built a sea wall made of coral on one side
of the village and placed big black boulders near the entrance
to the village. “In the 1980s a concrete sea wall was built to
replace the coral one with assistance from the Government” (Serua
village, Interview). Parts of the sea wall have been eroded which
residents say has caused further coastal erosion and inundation
rendering most of the island land unfavorable for agriculture and
vulnerable to extreme events such as cyclones. “Well, I used to
see my forefathers taking coconut trunks and assemble them along
the beach. But overtime this was not enough as the waves continue
to become stronger and bigger, and the coconut trunks eventually
were degraded and washed away. Also, we piled huge boulders
and like the coconut trunks was also not successful, we would
change the stones and the coconut trunks but still the waves were
winning” (Serua village, Interview). The inundation of seawater
places plantations and houses at high risk of damage.
Flooding has reportedly become more prevalent on the
island in recent years. Villagers noted that when there is heavy
rain, the village ground quickly becomes flooded and swampy:
“The island rarely experienced flooding from hurricanes before,
the island now floods. Many of the island’s trees, traditional and
medicinal plants, gardens, and trapping grounds are gone” (Serua
village FG, Women). Tidal events are becoming more intrusive
and noticeable when seawater inundates the village. The sea
walls built on the island do not allow runoffs of excess water back
into the sea which compounds the problem of floods. “In 2020
we had the function for our late chief. It was raining that day and
high waves. When I returned home, I was basically wading in the
village water above my knees. I had to lift my dress” (Serua village,
Interview). Due to this flooding, along with saltwater intrusion,
residents cannot grow vegetables or crops on the island and must
grow their food on the mainland.
Serua Island was identified for relocation by the Government
of Fiji. “With all the changes that are happening to the island
like coastal erosion and flooding, Serua island was identified by
the Government of Fiji as one of the communities in danger of
facing relocation in 2018” (GoF, 2021).Four Mataqalis (clans)
on Serua Island have been urged to identify favorable sites for
relocation. Residents recognize the threats of changing climatic
and environmental conditions: “One can walk around this island
in <30 min and walk across it in 10 min. Believe me, we know
how strong and dangerous the waves have become to our lives and
what it has done and can still do to our beloved island” (Serua
village, FG men). Despite these existential threats, residents of
Serua Island have chosen to remain.
4.3. Lessons learned from past relocation
The resettlement of Serua Islanders to Talenaua and
Dogowale settlement presents both negative and positive
learnings of relocation. With no framework to guide these
relocations, decisions of when and where to move were made
on a household basis. All participants that were interviewed
and relocated from Serua Island were able to relocate onto
customary land over which they had tenure claims. In Dogowale
settlement, all participants said their proximity to the island
is essential because of their role in the Fijian social hierarchy
system. “Our location off the island but at the jetty landing to
get to the island is convenient because any visitor to the Island,
we will know about it first. That is our traditional role not only
as kingmakers but above all else defending the sovereignty of the
Vunivalu (paramount chief of Serua province). . . relocating here
has not only kept us safe from climate-related risks, it has made
our life less difficult having access to services and above all else,
we still stay attached to our beloved Chief and Island” (Dogowale,
Frontiers in Climate 08 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
Interview). These sentiments were echoed by all interviewees in
Dogowale and Talenaua.
Even though Dogowale residents are not on the island
physically, they remain connected. “If our grandchildren are not
to be seen in Dogowale, they are swimming near Serua island
or playing with their relatives on the island or have gone fishing
with their cousins” (Dogowale, Interview). Like Dogowale, the
villagers of Talenaua are closer to their agricultural farms and
the road along which they sell produce. They have access
to transportation and services like education, medical, and
communications. Most villagers are either studying, farming,
or working in government services, supermarkets, and hotels,
both near and far: “It’s very easy to live here, close to farms,
medical, town, school. . . especially for the sick and the pregnant
women. It’s more expensive I feel living on the island compared to
here” (Talenaua, Interview). Due to salaried work, farming, and
the distance from the ocean, the villagers only go fishing when
the need arises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the men and
youth of Talenaua spent most of their time in the agricultural
fields. “The youths just farmed. Some youths who hardly went to
the farms went. Our parents were amazed to see the amount of
land up there cultivated” (Talenaua, Interview).
While all families that had relocated expressed the necessity
for them to relocate and experienced positive aspects of
relocating, there were also many reported challenges. All
participants from Dogowale and Talenaua explained that the
land to which they had relocated presents ongoing challenges.
Dogowale residents mentioned they are safe from the impacts of
climate-related risks (like coastal erosion, flooding, and sea-level
rise); however, they experience soil erosion from the hill behind
their homes. In Talenaua, they encounter flood risk: “This place
Talenaua is a flood prone area. When it rains the whole place
gets flooded right up to the community hall there near the road”
(Talenaua, Interview).
There are also social impacts of relocation. Residents
of Serua Island frequently expressed concern about the
fragmentation of the village of Serua. This fracturing of a single
community into three settlements (Talenaua and Dogowale and
those that remained on Serua Island) has had a significant
impact on community life and social capital. Today, there are
more people living in Talenaua than in Serua Island. As the
years pass, elders’ attempts to maintain their customary role and
connection and identity to the chiefly Island have proven futile.
As one Talenaua resident/elder stated: “If you ask any young
person here where they from, they will say they from Talenaua. ..
that is wrong it should be from Serua village. Most of the children
and youths that reside here are born and bred in Talenaua. But
despite that, they are all from Serua village. Parents must drill
that into their minds. No one is from Talenaua and no one is from
Dogowale. That is my fear right now, the identity crisis” (Talenaua
and Dogowale Interview).
When traveling past Talenaua, there is a signboard on the
roadside that reads “Talenaua village.” In an interview with one
of the elderly man, he explained: “there was no consultation or
discussion regarding that sign board and people thinking this is
a village. . . there is only one village and that is Serua and we
are part of that. So as time changes people’s minds also change...
trying to move their own way and be disassociated from our origin,
our ancestral land and our Vunivalu” (paramount Chief).
These critical aspects of village life that have evolved
in new sites such as Talenaua and Dogowale offer a lesson
for relocation and adaptation planning. The biggest fear
expressed by remaining residents on Serua Island is the losses—
including cultural practices, sense of place, and identity—that
will be incurred if and when they relocate to mainland Viti
Levu. Therefore, they have chosen to stay on Serua Island
to act as guardians of the island and to preserve its deep
cultural importance.
4.4. Why are we still here? The case for
voluntary immobility
The community living on Serua Island was identified by
the Government of Fiji as needing to relocate to mainland Viti
Levu. Despite significant coastal erosion and flooding over the
last two decades, residents have chosen to remain and regard
their island as a source of pride and as critical to their identity.
“Na cava mada na vuna keimami tikoga kina ike?” [Why are
we still here?] (Serua village, FG men). Serua Island residents
have voiced strong cultural and kinship connections to their land
and oceans, and relocation invokes significant concerns about
dislocation from ancestral lands and being unable to provide
ongoing guardianship of sacred sites. “It is these sentiments that
continue to evoke strong emotional attachments to the Vanua”
(GoF, 2021). This sense of Vanua has been central to residents’
reluctance to relocate. Vanua is the foundation for climate-
related immobility on Serua Island, a point that is highly relevant
to climate change policy and adaptation.
4.4.1. Vanua: The epicenter of Indigenous Fijian
culture
The concept of Vanua, Whenua, Fonua, etc., across the
Pacific is a critical component of Fijian culture. While lexically
it means land, region, place, or spot (Capell, 1941), in the
Fijian language, Vanua goes far beyond these descriptions, as we
outline below. There are also several, diverse meanings of Vanua.
For example, Vanua can be used to refer to Fiji as an entire
country governed by a central authority, or a local community
can use Vanua to describe their island home made up of a
confederacy of people under a paramount chief.
Attempting to understand the depth and diversity of the
concept of Vanua is challenging, which is only compounded
when attempting to then translate it into English. As such, this
section will provide quotes on the meaning of Vanua using the
Frontiers in Climate 09 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
Indigenous Fijian language (Bauan) and provide the English
translation below. This is equally important to do given that
the best people to provide insights into the definition of this
key symbol in the Fijian culture is the Lewe ni vanua (people
of the Vanua). Providing these meanings of Vanua in Bauan also
helps in not diluting the meaning of Vanua from a Fijian context.
During Talanoa sessions, locals from Serua Island provided the
following accounts of what Vanua means to them:
Ni tasereki vakavosa na ulutaga oqo na Vanua, e utona
ga na uma ni qele, na I qoliqoli, kei na I yau bula e tu vata
kina (Serua village, Interview).
When the concept of Vanua is analyzed linguistically, its
essence is a piece of land, fishing grounds, and the associated
natural resources.
In this sense, Vanua quite literally refers to the physicality of
the land and ocean. But, as the Talanoa unfolded, further layers
of Vanua were revealed:
E dua tale na kena yasana ni vakamacalataki na Vanua,
ka vaka bibi taka na ulutaga oqo na Vanua, e vakaliuca kina
na kena tamata se lewe ni vanua, ka ra umani vakayavusa,
mataqali, I tokatoka ka koto vata kei na veitutu kei na I tavi
me ra qarava me sauvaki kina na Vanua kei na kena liutaki
(Serua Island, Interview).
Another important aspect of this concept of Vanua is
the paramount importance of its people or citizens, who are
grouped according to Yavusa (tribe), Mataqali (clan), and I
Tokatoka (sub-clan) and have various positions and duties to
perform so that the Vanua and its leadership can be effective.
Here, the social and cultural aspects of Vanua emerged.
In social terms, for a Vanua like Serua to be known and
recognized, it must have an adequate number of people living on
it, supporting, and defending its rights and interests. The value
of land is brought further to life with people, and people need
this land in order to thrive. Land becomes lifeless and useless
without the people, and likewise, the people are also helpless and
insecure without the land to thrive upon. The Vanua of Serua
village offers allegiance to the Turaga na Vunivalu (paramount
chief of Serua province), which consists of the Yavusa Korolevu
and Burenitu and its four Mataqali (clans).
Another important aspect of Vanua is that it constitutes
Indigenous Fijian worldviews, which encompasses the common
values and beliefs about life in the natural and spiritual world:
Sa oti e dua na drau na yabaki na kena yaco mai Viti na
lotu vakarisito. I a e so na vakabauta ni se bera mai na kau
lotu e se laurai vinaka tiko e na noda bula na iTaukei. Kevaka
eda sega ni rokova na Vanua, noda Turaga, na waitui, dela ni
yavu, vanua tabu, na veiwekani, manumanu kei na kau, na
kauta mai na dredre, dravudravua, tauvimate, mate, draki
ca. Na vakabauta oqo e tuberi keimami ena bula ni veisiga I
nakoro (Serua village, FG men).
Despite being Christians for more than a century,
traditional supernatural beliefs, still have a significant
influence on our lives today. If we do not respect the Vanua,
our chief, the sea, ancestral home, sacred places, our relations,
fauna and flora, it will result in difficulties, poverty, sickness,
death, and bad weather. This is the fundamental belief that
guides us in our daily life in the village.
Along with traditional supernaturalism based on ancestor
gods, Christianity also plays a significant role in Fijian’s daily
lives, which have recently been infused with the Vanua notion.
Na Vanua e dua na vosa rabailevu kevaka meda
vakamacalataka, ena I Vola tabu makawa—enai
Vakatekivu—e tukuni vakamatata kina ni bulia na lomalagi
kei vuravura na Kalou, eda kila ni Vanua e nona Kalou.
Veikace e bulia e ligana, mai na qele, vunikau, manumanu,
waitui, lomalagi, kei na tamata ka vakatokai na Vanua, e
vakarokorokotaki ka vakaturagataki ka meda taqomaka ka
maroroya ena loloma dina ena veitabagauna kece (Serua
village, Interview).
Vanua is a broad concept to define. In the Old Testament-
in the book of Genesis-it is clearly stated that God created
heaven and earth, so we know that the Vanua belongs to
God. He created all things with his hands, from the soil, trees,
animals, sea, sky, and the people who are called the Vanua,
which is revered and honored, and we should protect it and
treasure it with a genuine love forever and ever.
Christian values and emotional bonds tied to the Vanua
of Serua village shape the actions of Serua villagers to
protect and safeguard their island. On this note, this study
highlights the centrality of stewardship to Vanua, a concept
that is underemphasized but highly pertinent to climate change
mitigation and adaptation.
Kena I otioti ga, na Vanua talega e dodonu meda dau
maroroya. Dua na yasana talega au vakabauta me dau
tukuni wasoma tiko vei ira na gone. Matai e sega ni noda na
Vanua, ia e solisoli ni Kalou, kena ikarua na ka kece baleti
keda na kawa ITaukei okati kece tu ena Vanua. Ya na kena
bibi na Vanua vei keda. Na gauna ni draki veisau da lako
curuma tiko qo, da kalougata na kawa ITaukei baleta na
maroroi noda Vanua e tiko talega noda I tovo ni bula kei
noda vakabauta vakarisito. Maroroi ni yau bula e dua na
ka sa dau cakava tu mai liu noda qase. E dina era sega ni
vuli vaka na vuli e loma ni koronivuli—nodra kila ka sa bau
totoka baleta era rawa sara tu ga ni kidava na ka e rawa ni
yaco mai na veiveisau ni draki era sa qai dau cakava e so
na ka me vakaukauwataka, vakavinakataka ka taqomaka na
Vanua (Serua village, Interview).
Frontiers in Climate 10 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
Finally, the Vanua is something that we should preserve.
This is also an aspect I believe should be often told to children.
First, the Vanua does not belong to us, it is a gift from God;
second, everything about our identity as Fijians is contained
in the Vanua. That is how important the Vanua is for us.
During this time of climate change, we are experiencing,
we indigenous Fijians are blessed because our Vanua is
preserved, and we also have our customs and our Christian
beliefs. Preserving the environment is something our ancestors
have done for a long time. It is true that they were not
formally educated in schools-but their amazing knowledge
could predict what would happen as a result of climate
change and develop steps to strengthen, improve and protect
the Vanua.
Thus, for residents of Serua village, Vanua is a relational
concept that encompasses physical, cultural, social, and spiritual
dimensions that nurture and bind place and people to the past,
present, and future. This strong connection prompts the iTaukei
people to exercise active stewardship to protect the Vanua that
God has given them at all costs.
The Indigenous Fijian term Vanua contains interconnected
aspects in the physical, social, cultural, spiritual, and stewardship
dimensions. This paper will first address each dimension in turn,
highlighting significant themes that came up in the interview
and Talanoa in Serua village, and then provide a summary of
how they are interconnected at the conclusion.
4.4.2. Physical dimension
Vanua’s social and physical structures offer a sense of
confidence, belonging, and identity. The residents of Serua
Island take comfort in knowing that they are a distinct
Vanua with a territorial region where their roots are firmly
planted and where they or their ancestors were born and
raised. The following components—related to Vanua’s physical
characteristics—have been recognized as crucial determinants
of people’s decisions to stay put: (i) Yavutu and Yavu (the
foundation stone) and (ii) Waitui (biocultural seascape).
(a) Foundation stone (Yavutu/Yavu)
A vital part of Vanua is the link to ancestors, who remain
almost a tangible part of the village. Two elements of Vanua
that connect Indigenous Fijians to their ancestors and their past
are Yavutu and Yavu. “ Yavutu is the first foundation of a village
by the ancestor or original site, Serua Island and Yavu is the
foundation of stones and earth on which a house is built, and
in which the owner was in olden times buried” (Serua village,
Interview). Yavutu and Yavu, though similar and connected to
one root idea, have different meanings. Yavutu and Yavu provide
a sense of attachment to place. “We do not want to leave Serua
island because this is where our forefathers came together to first
settle and made a life for us” (Serua village, Interview). Emotional
feelings and psychological attachment to the Yavutu are strong;
this continues to strengthen the attachment and behavior to
defend and protect it. “When a Yavu or foundation of a home
is created, they name it, and they remain forever. The same Yavu
or foundation is where people are buried as well. The concept of
a graveyard is an introduced concept. Before when one died, they
were buried in their Yavu or foundation. Their bones, sweat, tears,
and hard work are all buried in the Yavu. So, when a child is
growing up, he or she is aware that their identity is right beneath
their feet. And we are told to relocate and leave all this behind, I
would be like an orphan. Going to a new place as a visitor” (Serua
village, Interview).
The Yavutu and Yavu are sacred possession of the family and
village. It provides legitimacy for one’s place in the locality or
relationship to the village. Many believe that the disturbance of
the Yavutu will cause misfortune, to their relatives or to other
village members. This disturbance includes the abandonment of
the Yavu by the family. Hence, the people of Serua Island choose
to remain because they fear dislocating from their ancestral
lands and losing their sense of identity and belongingness.
(b) A holistic biocultural seascape (Waitui)
The residents of Serua view the ocean and coast as a single,
integrated biocultural seascape that encompasses both nearby
fishing grounds and farther-off ocean areas. The ecosystems of
the water are tied to the people of Serua Island both culturally
and environmentally. One of the essential pillars of Serua’s
identity is that the ocean links the inhabitants to Serua Island
and vice versa.
The ocean that separates Serua Island from mainland Viti
Levu is part of the identity as the men and women of Serua
village: “When you have walked to the island, that means you
have finally stepped foot on Serua” (Serua village, interview).
Vulagi (visitors) to the island may find this a challenging way
to get to the island; however, for the people traveling this body
of water daily is the essence of a being Serua Islander. “We do
not view crossing the ocean to get to the mainland as a challenge.
Our environment is also part of our daily planning, we gauge
when to go and when to return according to the tide. Our daily
experiences with the ocean have helped us survive on the Island”
(Serua village, FG women).
Fishing is a source of income on Serua Island. With the
installation of electricity on the island, the people can store their
catch in their deep freezers for a couple of days before selling
them. The residents of Serua Island have been able to improve
their quality of life because of the fish income. “From selling
fish I was able to renovate this house and purchase my fiberglass
boat. I was also able to purchase two deep freezers where I store
fish overnight. I travel to Suva city market to sell fish” (Serua
village, Interview).
During one of the Talanoa sessions, there were discussions
of further upgrading the island by constructing a walkway
to connect Serua Island to the mainland. The majority of
Frontiers in Climate 11 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
participants did not support this idea and preferred to fortify the
island with a sea wall instead. “Enhancing the sea wall would be
more effective because it will protect our island of Serua” (Serua
village, FG men). However, not everyone shares this sentiment.
“This walkway will bring back our people who have left the island
connecting them to their roots and our paramount chief” (Serua
village, Interview).
There may be disagreements over the proposed walkway,
but the Serua people do not want to leave their island. If they
went to the mainland, they would have to give up the Waitui
(ocean), which is an essential and familiar element of their life
and a source of security and belonging. According to the people,
planned relocation will break this biocultural bond with their
Yavutu, Yavu, and Waitui.
4.4.3. Social dimension
(a) Members of land (Lewe ni Vanua)
Vanua can also refer to kin who are structured into several
interconnected social units. The Vanua according to the people
of Serua village “is the living soul or human expression of the
physical environment that the members have since claimed to
be theirs and to which they belong” (Serua village, interview).
The people are the Lewe ni vanua (people of the Vanua) who
serve as the social identities of the land as well as safeguarding
and utilizing its resources. “For the island of Serua to be
recognized, it must have people living on it and supporting and
defending its rights and interests ...and to be told to leave this
island, it feels like we are stripped off of our tangible foundation
for identification and belonging” (Serua village, Interview). A
land without inhabitants is compared to someone without a
soul. “Without people, the land becomes dead and useless, and
similarly, without land to live on, people become helpless and
insecure” (Serua village, Interview).
(b) Typical layout of an iTaukei village
The location of buildings in an iTaukei village has social
dimensions, ranked according to their purpose. The traditional
built environment of iTaukei villages safeguards Indigenous
expression: “The idea of the layout of the village acts as a
bridging medium between iTaukei people and their culture”
(Serua village, Interview). The layout represents the legitimacy of
one’s position, family lineage, and identity in a village. The layout
illustrates the relationship iTaukei people have with Vanua: “The
arrangement of the houses represents extended families, which is
a cluster of Yavu and for this reason, many families build their
houses in the same area” (Serua village, Interview).
A key aspect of an iTaukei village is the Rara, or green area,
where cultural and traditional activities are practiced. It usually
lies close to the center and is regarded as a holy place. As one
approaches the green area, it is easy to spot the paramount chief ’s
house because it is always big and elegant and close to the Rara.
It highlights the link between culture and identity and place.
Residents of Serua village express concern that retreating and
relocating villages in Fiji have not retained the traditional layout.
This is exemplified by the following quote: “We have seen the
way previously relocated villages are formed; it no longer reflects
a village layout in my opinion. One has to remember our village
is the chiefly village of the province, it must reflect that always if
and when we relocate because that is part of who we are” (Serua
village, Interview).
4.4.4. Cultural and spiritual dimension
The belief and value system, interpersonal relationships, and
interactions between people and the environment play a role in
how people feel and act. The decision of Serua Island residents
to remain was influenced by sacred sites (Vanua tabu), the
residence of their paramount chief (Vanua vakaturaga), and the
link of newborns to the island through the umbilical cord.
(a) The seat of the paramount chief of Serua
(Vanua vakaturaga)
The people of Serua Island fulfill duties to their paramount
chief and ultimately the Vanua. Residents are adamant that if
they depart the island, and they might encounter challenges
in a new place. The Turaga Na Vunivalu is the head of Serua
province. The province has 24 villages spread across four
districts (GoF, 2021). The island of Serua has been historically
regarded as the traditional residence of the Serua supreme
chief. People of Serua revere the Turaga na Vunivalu, as the
descendant and representative of the ancestor gods and as gods
themselves. “When we are true to the Vanua, and our chief,
this island will be secured. When we are true to our chief, we
are true to our God in heaven” (Serua village, FG men). This
ideology asserts that chiefs rule by right, not by might; Fijian
chiefs are believed, still, to hold their position because their right
has been prescribed. “Our food, our firewood, and other resources
are located on the mainland. Why are we still here? When we look
deeper, our forefathers, chose to remain on the island and live like
this just so they could remain close and serve our paramount chief.
Now, this is a true reflection of an iTaukei person one who shows
respect, loyalty, humility” (Serua village, FG men). The people
are aware of the authority bestowed upon their chief and the
customary obligations imposed upon them in the Vanua.
(b) Sacred site (Vanua tabu)
The Vanua tabu are revered as sacred sites by the people
of Serua Island. The supernatural beliefs in spirits and ancestor
gods are centered around them. Most sacred spots were once
inhabited by ancestors, served as burial grounds, or are thought
to be the residence of ancestor spirits. People are not allowed
to make noise or wander around these locations for fear that
they may fall ill, die, or experience other sorts of agony. Two
examples of sacred sites on Serua Island are the tombs of former
paramount chiefs and the traditional or original location of the
Frontiers in Climate 12 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
first founding ancestor. “Even though these Vanua tabu (sacred
sites) strictly do not allow the activity of any kind, it still requires
guardianship, so we can’t abandon the island and relocate” (Serua
village, Interview).
Residents of Serua Island feel significant climate-related
threats. The community members are split between the need
to protect their cherished place and the need to relocate as the
consequences of climate change worsen, even though relocation
seems inevitable in the future: “During rain associated with high
tides and strong winds, one will find Serua village like a river
or ocean filled with water. Despite these experiences we face due
to climate-related impacts, it is our loyalty to our paramount
chief that prevents us from leaving” (Serua village, Interview).
Residents are aware of climatic and environmental changes, yet
they are unable to leave because they must continue to defend
sacred sites.
(c) Newborn links to the Vanua through the umbilical
cord connection
In an Indigenous Fijian household, a Magiti (food
presentation) is made for the newborn child 4 nights following
birth with contributions from both the parent’s relatives. The
child’s expected removal of the umbilical cord is commemorated
by this feast. The umbilical cord is carefully buried, and a tree is
placed over it. Many villagers said that their umbilical cord was
either thrown into the sea or buried in Serua Island. The burying
of the umbilical cord binds newborns to the soil the forefathers
are interred. One of the elderly women in Serua village perfectly
encapsulated this life cycle when she said: “The need to be literally
planted in Vanua (land and ocean) is very important to us as
Fijians as the ritual of the umbilical cord signifies. It is about
identity and connection. Use of the tree indicates; the tree is part
of the person tied to the Vanua. Wherever we go, the place where
our umbilical cord is buried will always be cherished in our heart”
(Serua village, Interview).
Christianity is also of utmost importance in the lives
of Indigenous Fijians, alongside traditional beliefs such as
customary roles to the paramount chief of Serua, ongoing
supervision of sacred locations, and the umbilical cord
connection to the land. Plans existed to move the senior pastor’s
home to the mainland: “Why should my house be on the
mainland when the paramount chief’s house is on the island? It
is only right and appropriate and respectful that the church and
the Vanua are located close to each other. That is the purpose
from God. The church and the Vanua must go hand in hand.
The further away from each other physically the weakening in
its role, and purpose to the people of Serua” (Senior pastor,
Interview). Furthermore, the senior pastor adds that the church
plays a significant role in influencing moral perceptions of the
Vanua. If the Vanua is to prosper, the people must intensify their
worship of the Christian God. “When we prioritize God then
our life in the Vanua will be complete, poverty, curses, ailments,
extreme weather events, criminal activities, and environmental
degradation to name a few will be defeated and harmony and
wellbeing will prevail over the Vanua” (Senior pastor, Interview).
4.4.5. Climate stewardship
The Vanua notion, which is central to Fijian culture, gives
Serua Islanders a profound sense of connectedness to their
physical, social, cultural, and spiritual selves. This sense of Vanua
guides decisions to stay put rather than to relocate. Beyond
deciding to stay, it also inspires people to take responsibility
for their surroundings and community and to take actions
that will safeguard and strengthen their resilience: “The water,
waves, wind, and the land on which Serua village is on is our
Tokani (friends). We take care of them, and they will take
care of us” (Serua village, Interview). Serua Island inhabitants
seek to protect their community, and the significance of this
stewardship, an under-examined aspect of Vanua, is described
and explored below.
(a) Taking collective action to safeguard Serua Island
(maroro I ni Vanua)
The will of Serua Island residents to stay put has been
strengthened even with the heightened pressures and climate-
related risks they face. The young people of Serua, for instance,
reflected on relocation as a strategy of adaptation: “it’s so
important to begin the conversation around relocation now to
minimize loss and damage in the future because it will generate
an added desire to continue to protect our island”. The elders
remind the young Serua villagers that they must continue to
protect the island, at any cost, and prefer in situ adaptation over
relocation: “We got together and buried that place where we saw
the waves coming up on tothe land from senior pastor’s house that
side, and it worked” (Serua village, FG men). The knowledge of
the effects of climate change and the experiences of collaborative
efforts taken to lessen effects unify and inspire the community
to continue working together to defend their land: “One of the
most important lessons present climate-related risks can teach us
is we are not powerless, and we must work together to save Serua
village, our home” (Serua village, FG women).
The people of Serua Island have taken several collaborative
measures to safeguard and improve social and ecological
resilience, both on their own and with outside organizations’
help. Mangrove planting, waste management, beautification
initiatives carried out by the Serua women’s group, village
engagement with local tourism hotels for eco-tourism activities
(scuba diving and village experience), and the construction of
nature-based seawalls in vulnerable areas are some of these
stewardship activities. These activities are supported by the
Government of Fiji (GoF, 2021). These stewardship initiatives
are chosen, planned, and carried out using local and traditional
knowledge: “Traditional knowledge passed down to us from our
elders regarding the weather, we learned from childhood days is
after a big rain and when frogs make sounds that mean that
Frontiers in Climate 13 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
the rainy weather had passed so it’s safe to go outdoors” (Serua
village, FG youth). The youth and women’s group on the island
also voiced the need for additional climate change awareness
programs in the village: “We are familiar with the traditional
environmental knowledge of our island, but we would also like to
learn more about the science of climate” (Serua village, FG youth).
Deep cultural and kinship ties to their land and waters have
been stated by Serua Island residents, and moving to a new place
away from climate threats raises severe concerns about being
uprooted from an ancestral territory and unable to maintain
stewardship of a place of belonging. For the time being, they
remain in place and are working together as a community to
preserve and safeguard these connections.
4.4.6. Interconnectivity of Vanua
The many parts of Vanua were discussed separately in the
section above to show that the concept of Vanua comprises
more than just the physical dimension. This section illustrates
the relationship between the different dimensions of Vanua (see
Figure 2).
For us Indigenous Fijians, there are very strong links
between the environment, our traditional way of life, and our
spiritual life. The fact that we are humans doesn’t mean that
we should do what we like with our environment and the
way it functions. Indigenous Fijians stand in the middle of the
relationship between the physical and the spiritual world. We
respect both and are closely bound to both these aspects and
we will protect this island for as long as we can. The concept of
this close connection or relationship is important in discussing
climate change we are currently experiencing now and, in the
future (Serua village, Interview).
The Fijian word Vanua encompasses stewardship, social,
cultural, spiritual, and interrelated physical components.
Through Vanua, Serua village residents are bound to one
another. Vanua is made up of the people, traditions, customs,
beliefs, values, and institutions, and roles all of which coalesce
with the aim of achieving peace, unity, and prosperity. Vanua
fosters a feeling of identity and community. The emotional
attachment and connection with Vanua have a significant impact
on moral sentiments toward surroundings. For the majority of
Indigenous Fijians, abandoning one’s Vanua is akin to giving up
one’s life.
5. Discussion and policy implications
The Pacific Islands are one of the world’s most climate-
vulnerable regions, posing a serious threat to communities
where people live and work as well as their emotional ties to
those communities (Devine-Wright, 2013;Beyerl et al., 2018;
Luetz and Nunn, 2020). If adequate measures are not done
to mitigate climate change, and where in situ adaptation is
not feasible, these effects may contribute to the relocation of
people and populations (Warrick et al., 2016). However, recent
research shows that moving is not always the best or preferred
option (Adams and Adger, 2013;Ayeb-Karlsson et al., 2020).
It will be necessary to develop new ways of thinking that
challenge preexisting perceptions of immobility as signifying
disadvantage, which is often referred to as “trapped populations”
(Foresight, 2011). This paper set out to explore reasons why
people might choose to stay in areas affected by climate change.
Serua Island is one of the 800 communities in Fiji assessed
to be highly vulnerable to climate change and in need of
relocation (GIZ, 2019); yet this study finds that Vanua underpins
a reluctance among Serua village residents to move elsewhere.
While communities such as Serua Island resist relocation, there
is a very real possibility that rising sea levels, flooding, and
other direct or indirect impacts will make it impossible for
Serua Island residents to live in their current location in the
future. If, and when such thresholds are met, and relocation
emerges as the last resort option for Indigenous communities
like Serua village, relocation would mean a way of life, and
both tangible and intangible assets are compromised or lost.
Relocation may put noneconomic assets (such as cultural
heritage, sacred sites, foundation stones, traditional layout
of the village, religious rites, cultural knowledge—including
indigenous knowledge and practice) and personal objectives
in danger (Blondin, 2021). This may be a difficult process to
understand for an outsider because it means so much more
than renouncing physical assets (buildings, infrastructure, and
other human-made assets). These are deep-seated values linking
communities to their land. Considering noneconomic values,
like Vanua, allow decision-making models to move beyond
economic and other quantifiable factors and better reflect the
reasons why people prefer to remain.
Prominent Indigenous Fijian scholars that published works
on Vanua include Nayacakalou (1955,1975), Ravuvu (1983,
1987,1988), Lasaqa (1984), Tuwere (2002), and Nabobo-Baba
(2006,2008). These authors have all noted and described Vanua
to include complex biocultural, social, and physical aspects.
However, in this study, the residents of Serua village called
attention to another less well-known but no less significant
facet of Vanua: stewardship. This is a crucial contribution to
the understanding of Vanua, particularly considering climate
change. The residents of Serua make plain that Vanua refers to
the network of relationships between the natural environment,
social bonds and kinship ties, ways of being, spirituality,
and—importantly—stewardship (see Figure 2). Vanua, then,
transforms how residents perceive, use, and protect their natural
environment through active stewardship to enhance ecosystem
resilience and human wellbeing.
This paper has examined the significance of Vanua in
Indigenous Fijian culture, specifically in Serua village and
surrounding sites. The land–people nexus is considered
Frontiers in Climate 14 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
FIGURE 2
Vanua: at the epicenter of iTaukei culture (developed from presentationgo.com template).
indissoluble (Campbell and Barnett, 2010), yet in a warming
world the land, ocean, and environment are changing. Climate
change not only directly alters the natural environment (through
erosion, sea-level rise) but it alters an environment’s meaning,
identity, and emotional ties (Reser et al., 2011). For Serua
Island residents, this shapes decision-making in relation to
environmental change, adaptation, and community relocation.
It is time to understand the ways climate change and adaptive
responses alter people–place relationships. As described above,
residents of Serua Island understand that Vanua contains
interconnected aspects in the physical, social, cultural, spiritual,
and stewardship. Strong connections to one’s socio-physical
environment can encourage and create stewardship of place
(Manzo and Perkins, 2006;Mishra et al., 2010;Devine-Wright,
2013). Stewardship was evident among Serua Island residents
who coordinate restoration and protection efforts such as
building nature-based seawalls, picking up waste along their
shorelines, mangrove planting, conservation of water, and village
cleanups. Residents described their deep cultural and kinship
ties to their land and waters.
A stronger focus should be placed on Vanua in discussions
on climate change impacts and adaptation in Fiji. This case
study of Serua Island suggests that Vanua can contribute to a
preference for immobility. Climate change adaptation policies
and actions must consider voluntary immobility aspirations
and avoid imposing adaptation measures without consent (see
Adams, 2016;Zickgraf, 2018). For those who do not want to
move, fostering adaptive capacity in situ is crucial. Policies
should ensure that voluntarily immobile populations have access
to relevant information on risks and potential consequences
(Zickgraf, 2018) and receive assistance in putting adaptation
plans into action. Throughout the Pacific, and elsewhere there
are many cases of people choosing to remain in place, owing to
strong place attachment and the noneconomic costs related to
human mobility (McNamara et al., 2018;Anisi, 2020;Pill, 2020).
Participatory governance and inclusive practices are essential
to avoid potential maladaptation, loss and damage to culture,
livelihoods, and social networks (McNamara et al., 2018).
Even though Serua village is exposed to and at risk
from climate-related hazards, the residents call the island
home. Serua village highlights the importance of recognizing
and appreciating local and place-based reasons for voluntary
immobility, including Vanua and stewardship of place. Policies
and actions that conflict with the sense of Vanua run the
risk of being viewed as threatening, or even rejected, making
them less sustainable over time (Carrus et al., 2013). As
Frontiers in Climate 15 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
noted in, Gelves-Gómez and Brincat (2021, p. 73), a gap
exists between Vanua and climate change policies in Fiji and
highlighted that “. . . adaptation mechanisms do not mesh with
local interests, belief-systems, or community needs they will
remain ineffective”.
6. Conclusion
This paper explored the motivations of an Indigenous
community in Fiji to remain in place despite being faced with
climate-related risks. It has made three contributions to the
climate change and mobility field. First, it provides an empirical
place-based study of immobility in a site where planned
relocation is proposed as an adaptive response to climate risk.
Voluntary immobility remains a largely underexplored topic
for climate scholars and decision-makers; this paper adds to a
small but growing body of empirical research on climate-related
immobility. Second, the paper acknowledges and embraces
Vanua as a concept of central importance in Fiji, as voiced by
the people of Serua village, in the context of climate change
adaptation including planned relocation and immobility. Vanua
has provided the local community with the fortitude to resist
relocation. The Indigenous Fijian phrase “Tu ga na I nima
ka luvu na waqa” means that the boat is sinking but the
bail for draining water from the boat is within reach. This
metaphor reflects the experiences of Serua Island residents,
where people experience and anticipate climate change impacts,
but draw strength from Vanua and choose to remain. The
third contribution is highlighting the importance of stewardship
of place as a key component of Vanua. Indigenous peoples
have historically managed their lands and livelihoods in a
variety of climatic and weather conditions (Trawoeger, 2014).
Stewardship matters in a warming world; in Serua, it provides
a strong impetus to remain and protect a place of belonging
and connection.
Indigenous knowledge and accounts provide opportunities
to understand climate change and its impacts and adaptation
options (Schmidt et al., 2011;Halder et al., 2012;Trawoeger,
2014). However, climate impacts and adaptation occur across
diverse sociocultural contexts, “spanning political and cultural
barriers as well as belief systems and worldviews” (Gelves-
Gómez and Brincat, 2021, p. 76). Considering this, the
international community must collaborate with local people
and communities, including Indigenous and non-Indigenous
communities, in codesigning and comanaging adaptation
programs that are culturally appropriate and align with
local goals.
Climate change impacts will increasingly be experienced,
even if greenhouse gas emissions ceased today (Lyon et al., 2022).
While global climate action is urgently needed (Woodward
et al., 1998;Vicedo-Cabrera et al., 2021), residents of Serua
and other places in Fiji and around the world adapt. In Serua
village, for now, the need to remain and to protect a place of
belonging outweighs the pressures to relocate as climate-related
threats increase.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article
will be made available by the authors upon request, without
undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed
and approved by the University of Melbourne. The participants
provided their written informed consent to participate in
this study.
Author contributions
Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, and
writing—original draft preparation: MY. Methodology: MY,
KM, and CM. Writing—review and editing: MY, KM, AP-M, and
CM. Supervision: KM, CM, and AP-M. Project administration
and funding acquisition: KM and CM. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
Fieldwork for this research was funded through an
Australian Research Council Linkage grant (LP170101136)
and supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery
grant (DP190100604).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the people of Vanua
Serua who generously shared their knowledge, perspectives,
and insights. Thanks to the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs,
Serua Provincial office, Turaga-ni-Koro Serua village, and Prof.
Paul Geraghty for his assistance in translating and verifying
vernacular data and Taitusi Dradra who assisted with the
organization and logistics of fieldwork. We also thank the four
reviewers who provided constructive comments that helped
improve this paper.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Frontiers in Climate 16 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed
or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Aagaard, J., and Matthiesen, N. (2016). Methods of materiality: participant
observation and qualitative research in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 13, 33–46.
doi: 10.1080/14780887.2015.1090510
Adams, H. (2016). Why populations persist: mobility, place attachment and
climate change. Popul. Environ. 37, 429–448. doi: 10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3
Adams, H., and Adger, W. N. (2013). Changing Places: Migration and Adaptation
to Climate Change. Britstol: IOP Publishing. p. 11.
Adams, H., and Kay, S. (2019). Migration as a human affair: Integrating
individual stress thresholds into quantitative models of climate migration. Environ.
Sci. Policy. 93, 129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.015
Adey, P. (2006). If mobility is everything then it is nothing: Towards a relational
politics of (im) mobilities. Mobilities. 1, 75–94. doi: 10.1080/17450100500489080
Adger, W. N., Brown, I., and Surminski, S. (2018). Advances in risk assessment
for climate change adaptation policy. Philos. Trans. A Math Phys. Eng. Sci. 376,
20180106. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2018.0106
Albert, S., Bronen, R., Tooler, N., Leon, J., Yee, D., Ash, J., et al. (2017). Heading
for the hills: climate-driven community relocations in the Solomon Islands and
Alaska provide insight for a 1.5 ◦C future. Reg. Environ. Change. 18, 2261–2272.
doi: 10.1007/s10113-017-1256-8
Amin, C., Sukamdi, S., and Rijanta, R. (2021). Exploring migration hold factors
in climate change hazard-prone area using grounded theory study: evidence from
coastal Semarang, Indonesia. Sustainability. 13, 4335. doi: 10.3390/su13084335
Anisi, A. (2020). Addressing Challenges in Climate Change Adaptation: Learning
from the Narikoso Community Relocation in Fiji. Policy Brief. Tokyo: Toda Peace
Institute p. 84.
Aswani, S., and Lauer, M. (2006). Incorporating fishermen’s local
knowledge and behavior into geographical information systems (GIS) for
designing marine protected areas in Oceania. Hum. Organ. 65, 81–102.
doi: 10.17730/humo.65.1.4y2q0vhe4l30n0uj
Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Kniveton, D., and Cannon, T. (2020). Trapped in the prison
of the mind: Notions of climate-induced (im) mobility decision-making and
wellbeing from an urban informal settlement in Bangladesh. Palgrave Commun.
6, 1–15. doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-0443-2
Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Smith, C. D., and Kniveton, D. (2018). A discursive review
of the textual use of ‘trapped’in environmental migration studies: the conceptual
birth and troubled teenage years of trapped populations. Ambio. 47, 557–573.
doi: 10.1007/s13280-017-1007-6
Barnett, J., and Webber, M. (2010). “Migration as Adaptation: Opportunities
and Limits,” in Climate Change and Displacement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives,
McAdam, J. (ed). (UK: Hart Publishing) p. 37–56.
Beyerl, K., Mieg, H. A., and Weber, E. (2018). Comparing perceived effects of
climate-related environmental change and adaptation strategies for the Pacific
small island state of Tuvalu, Samoa, and Tonga. Island Stud. J. 13, 25–44.
doi: 10.24043/isj.53
Black, R., Arnell, N. W., Adger, W. N., Thomas, D., and Geddes, A. (2013).
Migration, immobility and displacement outcomes following extreme events.
Environ. Sci. Policy. 27, S32–S43. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.09.001
Blondin, S. (2021). Staying despite disaster risks: Place attachment, voluntary
immobility and adaptation in Tajikistan’s Pamir Mountains. Geoforum. 126,
290–301. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.08.009
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., Stewart, K., and Robson, K. (2001).
Focus Groups in Social Research. London: SAGE Publications, Limited.
doi: 10.4135/9781849209175
Bordner, A. S., Ferguson, C. E., and Ortolano, L. (2020). Colonial
dynamics limit climate adaptation in Oceania: perspectives from the Marshall
Islands. Glob. Environ. Change. 61, 102054. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.
102054
Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: reflecting on the research process. Qual. Report.
19, 1–9. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1026
Boydell, S. (2008). Finding hybrid solutions to the financial management of
customary land from a Pacific perspective. Aust. J. Indig. Educ. 37, 56–64.
doi: 10.1375/S1326011100000375
Buggy, L., and McNamara, K. E. (2016). The need to reinterpret “community”
for climate change adaptation: a case study of Pele Island, Vanuatu. Climate Dev. 8,
270–280. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2015.1041445
Campbell, J., and Barnett, J. (2010). Climate Change and Small Island
States: Power, Knowledge and the South Pacific. London: Routledge.
doi: 10.4324/9781849774895
Canzler, W., Kaufmann, V., and Kesselring, S. (2008). “Tracing Mobilities:
An introduction,” in Tracing mobilities. Towards a Cosmopolitan Perspective
Weert, C., Kaufmann, V., and Kesselring, S. (eds.). (Aldershot: Ashgate)
p. 1–12.
Capell, A. (1941). A New Fijian Dictionary. Glasgow: Government Printer.
Carey, J. (2020). Managed retreat increasingly seen as necessary in
response to climate change’s fury. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 117, 182–185.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2008198117
Carrus, G., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Dentamaro, I., Scopelliti,
M., and Sanesi, G. (2013). Relations between naturalness and perceived
restorativeness of different urban green spaces. PsyEcology. 4, 227–244.
doi: 10.1174/217119713807749869
Chand, S. (2015). The political economy of Fiji: past, present, and prospects.
Round Table (London) 104, 199–208. doi: 10.1080/00358533.2015.1017252
Cohen, J. H. (2002). Migration and “stay at homes” in Rural Oaxaca, Mexico:
Local Expression of Global Outcomes. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural
Systems and World Economic Development. p. 231–259.
De Sherbinin, A. M., Grace, K., McDermid, S., Van Der Geest, K., Puma, M. J.,
and Bell, A. (2022). Migration theory in climate mobility research. Front. Climate.
doi: 10.3389/fclim.2022.882343
Devine-Wright, P. (2013). Think global, act local? The relevance of place
attachments and place identities in a climate changed world. Glob. Environ.
Change. 23, 61–69. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.08.003
DFAT. (2022). DFAT Country Information Report Fiji. Australian Government
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Faist, T. (2013). The mobility turn: a new paradigm for the social sciences? Ethn.
Racial Stud. 36, 1637–1646. doi: 10.1080/01419870.2013.812229
Farbotko, C. (2022). Anti-displacement mobilities and re-emplacements:
alternative climate mobilities in Funafala. J. Ethnic Migration Stud. 48, 1–17.
doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2022.2066259
Farbotko, C., Dun, O., Thornton, F., McNamara, K. E., and McMichael, C.
(2020). Relocation planning must address voluntary immobility. Nat. Clim. Chang.
10, 702–704. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0829-6
Farbotko, C., and McMichael, C. (2019). Voluntary immobility and existential
security in a changing climate in the Pacific. Asia Pac. Viewp. 60, 148–162.
doi: 10.1111/apv.12231
Farrelly, T. (2010). “Reimagining ’Environment” in Sustainable Development.
Massey University Development Studies Working Paper Series. (Palmerston North,
New Zealand: Institute of Development Studies, Massey University).
FBOS (2017). Fiji 2017 Population and Housing Census [Online]. Suva, Fiji: Fiji
Bureau of Statistics.
Feetham, P., Vaccarino, F., Wibeck, V., and Linnér, B.-O. (2022). Using
talanoa as a research method can facilitate collaborative engagement and
understanding between indigenous and non-indigenous communities. Qual. Res.
14687941221087863. doi: 10.1177/14687941221087863
Frontiers in Climate 17 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
Foale, S. (2006). The intersection of scientific and indigenous ecological
knowledge in coastal Melanesia: implications for contemporary marine resource
management. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 58, 129–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2451.2006.00607.x
Foresight. (2011). Migration and Global Environment Change: Future Challenges
and Opportunities. London, UK: UK Government Office for Science) p. 236.
Fraenkel, J., and Firth, S. (2009). “The Enigmas of Fiji’sGood Governance Coup,”
in The 2006 Military Takeover in Fiji. Fraenkel, J., Firth, S., and Lal, B.V. (eds).
(Australia: ANU E Press) p. 3.
Gaikwad, P. (2018). Including Rigor and Artistry in Case Study as a Strategic
Qualitative Methodology. Qual. Rep. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2017.3436
Gelves-Gómez, F., and Brincat, S. (2021). “Leveraging Vanua: Metaphysics,
Nature, and Climate Change Adaptation in Fiji,” in Beyond Belief. Opportunities
for Faith-Engaged Approaches to Climate-Change Adaptation in the Pacific
Islands, Luetz, J. M., and Nunn, P. D. (eds). (Cham: Springer) p. 59–79.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-67602-5_4
Ghasarian, C. (1996). Introduction to the Study of Kinship. Paris: Éditions
du Seuil.
GIZ. (2019). Overview of Fiji’s Response to International Frameworks on Human
Mobility in the Context of Climate Change. Factsheet #1. Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Available online at: https://
www.adaptationcommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Overview- Fijis-
Response-to- HMCCC-2019.pdf (accessed July 22, 2022).
Glick Schiller, N., and Salazar, N. B. (2013). Regimes of mobility across the globe.
J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 39, 183–200. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2013.723253
GoF. (2021). RE: Planned Relocation in Fiji Interview with Government
Representatives. Fiji.
Gustafson, P. (2006). “Place attachment and mobility,” in Multiple Dwelling and
Tourism: Negotiating Place, Home and Identity McIntyre, N., Williams, D. R., and
McHugh, K. E. (eds). (Wallingford, UK: CABI) p. 17–31.
Halder, P., Prokop, P., Chang, C.-Y., Usak, M., Pietarinen, J., Havu-
Nuutinen, S., et al. (2012). International survey on bioenergy knowledge,
perceptions, and attitudes among young citizens. Bioenergy Res. 5, 247–261.
doi: 10.1007/s12155-011-9121-y
Huffer, E., and Qalo, R. (2004). Have we been thinking upside-down? The
contemporary emergence of Pacific theoretical thought. Contemporary Pacific 16,
87–116. doi: 10.1353/cp.2004.0011
IPCC (2022). “Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,”
in Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Portner, H. O., Roberts, D. C.,
Poloczanska, E. S., Mintenbeck, K., Tignor, M., Algeria, A., Craig, M., et al. (eds.).
(Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press).
Kamikamica, J. (1987). “Making native land productive,” in Land tenure in the
Pacific, Crocombe, R. (ed). (University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji: University
of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji) p. 226–239.
Kidd, P. S., and Parshall, M. B. (2000). Getting the focus and the group:
enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qual. Health Res. 10, 293–308.
doi: 10.1177/104973200129118453
Klepp, S. (2017). “Climate change and migration,” in Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science (Oxford University Press).
doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.42
Lagi, R., and Armstrong, D. (2017). “The Integration of Social and Emotional
Learning and Traditional Knowledge Approaches to Learning and Education in
the Pacific,” in Social and Emotional Learning in Australia and the Asia-Pacific:
Perspectives, Programs and Approaches,Frydenberg, E., Martin, A.J., and Collie, R.J.
(Singapore: Springer Singapore) p. 253–271. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-3394-0_14
Lahiri-Dutt, K., and Samanta, G. (2007). ‘Like the drifting grains of sand’:
vulnerability, security and adjustment by communities in the char lands of
the Damodar River, India. South Asia: J. South Asian Stud. 30, 327–350.
doi: 10.1080/00856400701499268
Lal, P., Lim-Appleby, H., and Reddy, P. (2001). The Land Tenure Dilemma in
Fiji-can Fijian Landowners and Indo-Fijia n Tenantshave Their Cake and Eat it too?.
Canberra, ACT: Crawford School of Public Policy; Australian National University
Asia Pacific Press.
Lasaqa, I. Q. (1984). The Fijian People Before and After Independence. Canberra,
Australia: Australian National University Press.
Lauer, M., and Aswani, S. (2010). Indigenous knowledge and long-term
ecological change: detection, interpretation, and responses to changing ecological
conditions in pacific island communities. Environ. Manage. 45, 985–997.
doi: 10.1007/s00267-010-9471-9
Luetz, J. M., and Nunn, P. D. (2020). “Climate change adaptation in
the Pacific Islands: a review of faith-engaged approaches and opportunities,”
in Managing Climate Change Adaptation in the Pacific region.p. 293–311.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-40552-6_15
Lyon, C., Saupe, E. E., Smith, C. J., Hill, D. J., Beckerman, A. P., Stringer, L. C.,
et al. (2022). Climate change research and action must look beyond 2100. Glob.
Chang. Biol. 28, 349–361. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15871
Mallick, B., and Schanze, J. (2020). Trapped or voluntary? Non-migration despite
climate risks. Sustainability 12, 4718. doi: 10.3390/su12114718
Manzo, L. C., and Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The
importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. J. Plan.
Lit. 20, 335–350. doi: 10.1177/0885412205286160
Mata-Codesal, D. (2015). Ways of staying put in Ecuador: social and
embodied experiences of mobility–immobility interactions. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 41,
2274–2290. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2015.1053850
McMichael, C., Farbotko, C., Piggott-McKellar, A., Powell, T., and Kitara,
M. (2021). Rising seas, immobilities, and translocality in small island
states: case studies from Fiji and Tuvalu. Popul. Environ. 43, 82–107.
doi: 10.1007/s11111-021-00378-6
McMichael, C., and Katonivualiku, M. (2020). Thick temporalities of planned
relocation in Fiji. Geoforum. 108, 286–294. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.012
McMichael, C., Katonivualiku, M., and Powell, T. (2019). Planned relocation
and everyday agency in low-lying coastal villages in Fiji. Geogr. J. 185, 325–337.
doi: 10.1111/geoj.12312
McNamara, K. E., Bronen, R., Fernando, N., and Klepp, S. (2018). The complex
decision-making of climate-induced relocation: adaptation and loss and damage.
Climate Policy. 18, 111–117. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1248886
Ministry of iTaukei Affairs (2022). A Transformed iTaukei Family for a Better Fiji
[Online]. Fiji: Government of Fiji. Available online at: http://www.itaukeiaffairs.
gov.fj/index.php/35-pm- welcome/116-pm-welcome (accessed October 16, 2022).
Mishra, S., Mazumdar, S., and Suar, D. (2010). Place attachment and flood
preparedness. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 187–197. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.005
Mitchell, J. (2022). Great Outdoors: The Serua Island getaway. Suva, Fiji: The
Fiji Times.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 22, 129–152.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129
Nabobo-Baba, U. (2006). Knowing and Learning: An Indigenous Fijian Approach.
Suva, Fiji: editorips@ usp. ac. fj.
Nabobo-Baba, U. (2008). Decolonising framings in Pacific research: Indigenous
Fijian Vanua research framework as an organic response. AlterNative: Int. J.
Indigenous Peoples. 4, 140–154. doi: 10.1177/117718010800400210
Nainoca, W. (2011). The influence of the Fijian way of life (bula vakavanua) on
community-based marine conservation (CBMC) in Fiji, with a focus on social capital
and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Palmerston North, New Zealand:
Doctor of Philosophy, Massey University.
Nayacakalou, R. (1955). The Fijian system of kinship and marriage: Part I. J.
Polynesian Soc. 64, 44–55.
Nayacakalou, R. R. (1975). Leadership in Fiji.Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies
of the University of the South Pacific in association with Oxford University Press.
Neef, A., Benge, L., Boruff, B., Pauli, N., Weber, E., and Varea, R. (2018). Climate
adaptation strategies in Fiji: The role of social norms and cultural values. World
Dev. 107, 125–137. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.029
Nielsen, J. Ø., and Reenberg, A. (2010). Cultural barriers to climate change
adaptation: a case study from Northern Burkina Faso. Glob. Environ. Change. 20,
142–152. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.002
Njie, B., and Asimiran, S. (2014). Case study as a choice in qualitative
methodology. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 4, 35–40. doi: 10.9790/7388-043
13540
Ottonelli, V., and Torresi, T. (2013). When is migration voluntary? Int. Migr.
Rev. 47, 783–813. doi: 10.1111/imre.12048
Piggott-McKellar, A. E., and McMichael, C. (2021). The immobility-
relocation continuum: Diverse responses to coastal change in a small
island state. Environ. Sci. Policy 125, 105–115. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.
08.019
Pill, M. (2020). “Planned Relocation from the Impacts of Climate Change in
Small Island Developing States: The Intersection Between Adaptation and Loss
and Damage,” in Managing Climate Change Adaptation in the Pacific Region,
Leal Filho, W. (ed). (Cham: Springer International Publishing) p. 129–149.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-40552-6_7
Prescott, S. M. (2008). Using Talanoa in pacific business research in New
Zealand: experiences with Tongan entrepreneurs. AlterNative. 4, 127–148.
doi: 10.1177/117718010800400111
Frontiers in Climate 18 frontiersin.org

Yee et al. 10.3389/fclim.2022.1034765
Rakai, K., Ezigbalike, I. C., and Williamson, P. (2013). Traditional Land Tenure
Issues For LIS In Fiji. Survey Review 33, 247–262. doi: 10.1179/sre.1995.33.258.247
Randin, G. (2018). The Importance of Kinship, Vanua (tribe, land) system and
Veilomani (mutual compassion) in Fiji and their influence on the Social and
Spatial Response to Climate Change. A Case Study of Dawasamu, Viti Levu Island.
Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Institut d’ethnologie.
Ravuvu, A. (1983). Vaka i Taukei: The Fijian Way of Life. Suva, Fiji: Institute of
Pacific Studies of the University of the South Pacific.
Ravuvu, A. (1987). Fijian ethos: The Fijian way of life. Suva, Fiji: Institute of
Pacific Studies of the University of the South Pacific.
Ravuvu, A. (1988). Development or Dependence: The Pattern of Change in a Fijian
Village. Suva, Fiji: Insititute of Pacific Studies and the Fiji Extension Centre of the
University of the South Pacific.
Reser, J. P., Morrissey, S. A., and Ellul, M. (2011). “The threat of climate change:
Psychological response, adaptation, and impacts,” in Climate change and human
well-being: Global Challenges and Opportunities, Weissbecker, I. (ed). (New York:
Springer) p. 19–42. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-9742-5_2
Robertson, R. (2000). “Retreat from exclusion? Identities in post-coup Fiji,” in
Confronting Fiji Futures, ed A. H. Akram-Lodhi (Canberra, ACT: Asia Pacific
Press), 269–292.
Roth, G. K. (1973). Fijian way of life. London: Oxford University Press.
Sakai, S. (2016). “Native land policy in the 2014 elections,” in The people have
spoken: the 2014 elections in Fiji, Ratuva, S., and Lawson, S. (Canberra, Australia:
ANU Press) p. 21. doi: 10.22459/TPHS.03.2016.07
Scannell, L., and Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment:
a tripartite organizing framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 1–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006
Schewel, K. (2020). Understanding immobility: moving beyond the mobility bias
in migration studies. Int. Migr. Rev. 54, 328–355. doi: 10.1177/0197918319831952
Schmidt, J., Leduc, S., Dotzauer, E., and Schmid, E. (2011). Cost-effective policy
instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution
through bioenergy production in Austria. Energy Policy. 39, 3261–3280.
doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.018
Stockdale, A., and Haartsen, T. (2018). Editorial introduction: Putting rural
stayers in the spotlight. Popul. Space Place. 24, e2124. doi: 10.1002/psp.2124
Stockdale, A., Theunissen, N., and Haartsen, T. (2018). Staying in a state of flux:
A life course perspective on the diverse staying processes of rural young adults.
Popul. Space Place 24, e2139. doi: 10.1002/psp.2139
Torren, C. (1999). Compassion for one another: constituting kinship
as intentionality in Fiji. J. Royal Anthropological Inst. 5, 265–280.
doi: 10.2307/2660697
Trawoeger, L. (2014). Convinced, ambivalent or annoyed: Tyrolean ski tourism
stakeholders and their perceptions of climate change. Tour Manag. 40, 338–351.
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.010
Tuwere, I. (2002). Vanua: Towards a Fijian Theology of Place. Suva, Fiji: Institute
of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific and College of St John the
Evangelist, Auckland, New Zealand.
Upadhyay, H., and Mohan, D. (2017). “Migrating to adapt?: Exploring
the climate change, migration and adaptation nexus,” in Climate Change,
Vulnerability and Migration, Irudaya Rajan, B. (ed). (India: Routledge) p. 43–58.
doi: 10.4324/9781315147741-3
Vaioleti, T. (2006). Talanoa research methodology: a developing position on
Pacific research. Waikato J. Edu. 12. doi: 10.15663/wje.v12i1.296
Vaioleti, T. (2013). Talanoa: differentiating the talanoa research methodology
from phenomenology, narrative, Kaupapa Maori and feminist methodologies. Te
Reo. 56, 191–212. doi: 10.3316/informit.674853083445219
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., and Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and
thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs.
Health Sci. 15, 398–405. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048
Vaka, S., Brannelly, T., and Huntington, A. (2016). Getting to the heart of the
story: using talanoa to explore pacific mental health. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 37,
537–544. doi: 10.1080/01612840.2016.1186253
Van Praag, L. (2021). Can I move or can I stay? Applying a life course
perspective on immobility when facing gradual environmental changes
in Morocco. Climate Risk Manag. 31, 100274. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2021.
100274
Vicedo-Cabrera, A. M., Scovronick, N., Sera, F., Roy,é, D., Schneider, R.,
Tobias, A., et al. (2021). The burden of heat-related mortality attributable
to recent human-induced climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 492–500.
doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01058-x
Warrick, O., Aalbersberg, W., Dumaru, P., McNaught, R., and Teperman, K.
(2016). The ‘pacific adaptive capacity analysis framework’: guiding the assessment
of adaptive capacity in Pacific island communities. Regional Environ. Change. 17,
1039–1051. doi: 10.1007/s10113-016-1036-x
Wiederkehr, C., Schröter, M., Adams, H., Seppelt, R., and Hermans, K.
(2019). How does nature contribute to human mobility? A conceptual
framework and qualitative analysis. Ecol. Society. 24, 4. doi: 10.5751/ES-11318-
240431
Wiegel, H., Boas, I., and Warner, J. (2019). A mobilities perspective on
migration in the context of environmental change. Climate Change. 10, e610.
doi: 10.1002/wcc.610
Woodward, A., Hales, S., and Weinstein, P. (1998). Climate change and human
health in the Asia Pacific region: who will be most vulnerable? Climate Res. 11,
31–38. doi: 10.3354/cr011031
Wyngaarden, S., Humphries, S., Skinner, K., Lobo Tosta, E., Zelaya Portillo,
V., Orellana, P., et al. (2022). ‘You can settle here’: immobility aspirations and
capabilities among youth from rural Honduras. J. Ethnic Migrat. Stud. 1–21.
doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2022.2031922
Yee, M., Piggott-McKellar, A., E., McMichael, Celia, and McNamara, K.,
E. (2022). Climate change, voluntary immobility, and place-belongingness:
insights from Togoru, Fiji. Climate (Basel) 10, 46. doi: 10.3390/cli10
030046
Zickgraf, C. (2018). “Immobility,” in Routledge Handbook of Environmental
Displacement and Migration, McLeman, R., and Gemenne, F. (London: Routledge)
p. 71–84. doi: 10.4324/9781315638843-5
Frontiers in Climate 19 frontiersin.org