Measuring Peripherality as a Proxy for Autonomous Community Coping Capacity: A Case Study from Bua Province, Fiji Islands, for Improving Climate Change Adaptation

Abstract

Over the past thirty years, externally-driven interventions for climate-change adaptation in rural Pacific Island contexts have largely failed to be effective or sustained. One reason is that traditional (culturally-grounded) autonomous community coping capacity has been overlooked, many external agencies viewing all such communities as both homogenous and helpless. A community’s autonomous coping capacity can be proxied by peripherality, a measure of the degree to which a particular community in archipelagic (island) countries engages with core agendas. In order to gauge the depth, breadth and efficacy of autonomous coping capacity, three indices of community peripherality were developed from research within thirteen communities in (peripheral-biased) Bua Province in Fiji. Index 1 concerns geography (travel time/cost to town), Index 2 concerns population and employment (community size, age distribution, employment), and Index 3 concerns tradition and global awareness (mobile phones per capita, traditional/western healthcare preferences, inherent coping capacity, diet, water and energy security). Mapping of Indices 1–3 allows the nature of community peripherality in Bua to be captured using a readily-reproducible tool for rapid assessment in similar contexts. It is demonstrated that an understanding of peripherality (as a proxy for autonomous community coping capacity) can inform the design of future interventions for climate-change adaptation.

1. Introduction

Among rural communities in developing countries, research suggests that autonomous community coping with environmental shocks (from rapid-onset disasters to slow-onset manifestations of climate change) varies with peripherality. Defined as a measure of a community’s engagement with global agendas and coarsely proxied by distance from national developmental cores (Maru et al. 2014; Nunn and Kumar 2018), peripherality is a measure that is commonly used in economic geography at a range of scales from the local to national-regional to global (e.g., Copus et al. 2008; Mao et al. 2014; Sofer 2015; Wallerstein 2004). The principal utility of such models has been the ready characterization of uneven development, whether this refers to such factors as income and investment potential, education and opportunity, or global networking through communications. Although large-scale spatial planning invariably glosses over intra-regional differences, the importance of more accurate spatial data, to capture diversity and inform policy, has become increasingly acknowledged (Lu and Fan 2010; Seltzer and Carbonell 2011).

This paper reports on how the effectiveness and sustainability of climate-change interventions in rural island communities might be improved by understanding and acknowledging their autonomous coping capacity, something that can be achieved by measuring their peripherality. The study area is part of the Fiji archipelago (Southwest Pacific) and comprises communities strung out along a core–periphery gradient. In recent years, many of these communities have experienced livelihood impacts consistent with the effects of climate change, which is expected to have even more profound livelihood impacts in this part of the world in the future.

Over the last thirty years, there have been numerous interventions for climate-change adaptation in Fiji and other Pacific Island countries. Externally designed and funded, most such interventions have failed in the sense that, when measured objectively, they have neither achieved their medium-term goals nor have they been sustained (McNamara 2013; Nunn 2009). While there may be many reasons for this (Piggott-McKellar et al. 2019a), it seems likely that failure is largely due to a lack of sustained community support (human and financial) for particular external interventions, something that in turn is attributable to a lack of understanding by those designing these interventions about community coping capacity, aspirations and worldviews (Nunn et al. 2016; Oakes 2019). Many attempts at underwriting the costs of climate-change adaptation in such situations assume that all communities are the same—that ‘one size fits all’—when in fact there is a significant diversity in the nature of communities and their ability to adapt, either autonomously or assisted (Nunn et al. 2014).

With the goal of improving the efficacy of external interventions for climate-change adaptation, this paper proposes that effective measurement of the peripherality of a particular community, which proxies its autonomous coping capacity, will permit such interventions to be tailored to its particular strengths and weaknesses, compared to others. To test this proposition, a series of 13 rural communities in western Bua Province in Vanua Levu Island, (Figure 1), the second largest in Fiji and an area representative of many rural (peripheral) parts of Pacific Island countries, was studied in depth. Data obtained allowed the development of indices to measure community peripherality that proxy autonomous coping capacity.

2. The Study Area

Fiji is an archipelago in the tropical Southwest Pacific that has been inhabited for more than three millennia. Despite almost half of its ~895,000 people living in towns and cities, mostly on the largest island (Viti Levu), some 90 islands are inhabited. Most income is generated and earned in core (urban) areas where population densities are highest. In contrast, many peripheral (rural) communities are subsistence-focused, often participating only marginally in the cash economy. Successive governments have funded improvements to rural living, including a network of schools and health centres, better access to clean drinking water and electricity, more opportunities for income generation (especially in agriculture and fisheries), and a reliable transport infrastructure.

Such interventions have made rural Fiji life more attractive but such gains are threatened by climate change (and ‘natural’ disasters) which has the potential to force a fundamental reconfiguration of how and where people live in island countries like Fiji and developing countries more generally. The effects of rising temperatures over the past few decades have become manifest in Fiji, especially in terms of their impacts on coral reefs which are key to coastal subsistence. Yet it is the associated sea-level rise that has had the most visible and widespread impacts in Fiji; the current rate of sea-level rise in Fiji is about 5.5 mm/year, almost twice the global mean (Dangendorf et al. 2017). These effects include shoreline erosion and increasing instances of coastal-lowland flooding as well as groundwater salinization (Nunn 2013). Over the last 20–50 years, the combined effect of these processes has resulted in a progressive loss of (usable) coastal land which has impacted livelihoods in rural areas like those in the study area in and off western Vanua Levu Island (Charan et al. 2017; Dumaru 2010; Martin et al. 2018; Piggott-McKellar et al. 2019b).

It would be wrong to suggest that climate change is the sole stressor on livelihoods in Fiji or even the principal driver of societal change in all its rural parts. Globalization has made steady ingress into rural Fiji, shuffling decision-making priorities and exposing people to new information that is leading to a subordination of traditional goals and knowledge (Brown et al. 2017; Janif et al. 2016). Yet climate change is likely to overshadow such changes in the next few decades unless its likely manifestations are anticipated and their impacts minimized through effective and sustained adaptation.

The study area in western Vanua Levu Island falls wholly within the province of Bua (Figure 1), which is governed at subnational level by the District Office that falls under the Commissioner Northern’s Office. Dominated by iTaukei people (79% in 2007 Census), much effective control on development in Bua is exercised by the Bua Provincial Council and traditionally through the chiefly hierarchy. Whether on the main island or a smaller one, most people in Bua live along its coasts and subsist at least in part from foods that they produce or acquire from their own land as well as nearshore (ocean) areas; coral-reef and mangrove ecosystems are key to most subsistence livelihoods. The Labasa-Nabouwalu highway—the only sealed road on Vanua Levu Island—runs through Bua. There is a full-service hospital in Labasa, a sub-divisional hospital in Nabouwalu, and a scatter of ‘nursing stations’ with a resident medical professional.

Of the 13 communities studied (see Figure 1), three are on smaller islands (Denimanu, Galoa, Yaqaga), two are on the main island but without road access (Logana and Naivaka), five have weather-dependent road access (Driti, Koroinasolo, Naviqiri, Navunievu and Tacilevu), two are ten minutes drive on reliable roads from the highway (Dalomo, Tausa), while the last straddles the highway (Lekutu). The closest ‘core’ place to all these communities is Labasa Town, the largest urban centre on Vanua Levu Island.

3. Methods

The first stage of research (Section 4.1) was to measure simple peripherality of the thirteen Bua communities using various measures of distance of each along the core–periphery gradient (community—Labasa) in this part of Fiji.

The second stage (Section 4.2) was to obtain answers from each community to a series of wide-ranging questions that would allow calculation of a range of proxies for community peripherality in Bua. Incorporating lessons from comparable peripherality research (notably Beer 2004; Copus et al. 2008), a questionnaire (Supplementary Materials) was developed that asked about eight distinct aspects of life in each target community in Bua: population and economy; transport and infrastructure; government services and education; health; communications and technology; culture, tradition and religion; climate, disaster prediction and response; water, diet and food production. In using the results from this to develop key peripherality proxies, it is important to bear in mind that the goal was to develop a simple yet effective way of measuring peripherality that might eventually be employed by persons wanting a rapid (rather than time-consuming) measurement of this.

The third and final stage (Section 4.3) was to develop peripherality indices and to then demonstrate their efficacy as measures of autonomous community coping in Buan communities.

All data were collected by the authors using one or more indigenous languages in cultural contexts in which community members were comfortable. As is common practice in rural Pacific Island communities, base data about a particular community were generally supplied by the turaga-ni-koro (headman), the usual custodian of such information, who also signed an Informed Consent form on behalf of all community members, ethically acceptable practice in such situations. Other questions were answered during group discussions. Typically involving ceremonial-social kava consumption, these groups generally comprised 6–20 adult males and females with two or three pre-designated spokespeople. Some questions elicited debate within the group, occasionally allowing an individual to recount a particular anecdote. In some cases, questions were asked separately of key community members, particularly the nurse, the schoolteacher/s, the church minister, or elders whose store of traditional knowledge tends to be much greater than that of community members aged fifty and under. Group discussions lasted three to four hours in most cases; interviews with key individuals usually lasted less. Discussions with community members were supplemented with observations of the community and the way it functions.

4. Results and Analysis

As explained above, this research was divided into three stages, each discussed in a subsection below.

4.1. Measuring Peripherality by Distance along the Core–Periphery Gradient in Bua

The purpose of this section is to measure distance along the core–periphery gradient that exists for Bua communities relative to the core location of Labasa. Straight-line and actual distances are shown in

Table 1. Distances along core–periphery gradients for Bua communities as a measure of expected peripherality.

Number	Community	Straight-Line Distance to Labasa Market (km)	Components of Travel to Labasa Market (km)			Actual (Unweighted) Distance to Labasa Market (km)	Weighted Distance to Labasa Market (km)
			Sealed Road	Unsealed Road	Boat
1	Dalomo	90	97.5	6	0	103.5	109.5
2	Denimanu	118.5	97.5	6	35.8	139.3	216.9
3	Driti	84.6	106	14	0	120	134
4	Galoa	75.5	80.5	0	11.5	92	115
5	Koroinasolo	95.5	97.5	19	0	116.5	135.5
6	Lekutu	78	80.5	0	0	80.5	80.5
7	Logana	102	97.5	6	23	126.5	178.5
8	Naivaka	92.5	80.5	21	15.5	117	169
9	Naviqiri	86	80.5	21	0	101.5	122.5
10	Navunievu	95.5	97.5	15.5	0	113	128.5
11	Tacilevu	96.5	97.5	15	0	112.5	127.5
12	Tausa	91	97.5	6	0	103.5	109.5
13	Yaqaga	84.5	80.5	0	25	105.5	155.5

and are simple measures of peripherality implicit in many comparable studies. Yet in Bua, travel along different parts of particular routes is not able to be carried out at the same rate. The only sealed road in the area, the Labasa-Nabouwalu highway (see Figure 1), can be reached by people from most Buan communities only if unsealed road or cross-ocean (not exclusively river) boat journeys are first taken. Many unsealed roads are periodically washed out or blocked by landslides, particularly after storm rains, or otherwise rendered impassable except by specialized vehicles; thus the risk involved in depending on them is higher than for sealed roads. Likewise, all boat travel in the area utilizes fibreglass ‘punts’ with outboard motors that periodically break down or sometimes cannot take to sea because of rough conditions that may endure for several days; the risk of utilizing these is considered four times higher than use of sealed roads, and significantly more than unsealed roads along which people can walk (or ride horses) if required. Thus, weighted distances in Table 1 acknowledge the portions of the journey (in 2016–2017) on sealed roads (unweighted), unsealed roads (weighted × 2) and by boat (weighted × 4). The authors used their expert judgement to determine these weightings, based on a combined 70+ years acquaintance with rural Fiji communities.

Straight-line distance is quite distinct from actual and weighted distances (Table 1). All three distance measures are used to evaluate potential proxies in the following section.

4.2. Identifying Proxy Measures of Peripherality for Bua Communities

It is expected that the closer the community is to town, the better its access to services and markets, (government) outreach, and information. Conversely, the further a community is from town, it is more likely to be globally uninformed/unaware although it might have considerable autonomous (traditional) coping ability (Nunn and Kumar 2018). Results are presented for each of the eight sections in the questionnaire below and in more detail in Appendix A.

In Bua, for population and economy, there is no simple relationship between community size and distance from core. There is a strong relationship between the numbers of people >65 years and distance from core, signalling a potential for traditional knowledge to be preserved, passed on to younger people, and utilized (as in the past) to autonomously cope with environmental challenges. Like peripheral communities in developing countries elsewhere, where in-situ opportunities for paid employment are few, many in Bua are dominated by grandparents and grandchildren because adults of working age are living and employed elsewhere. In terms of transport and infrastructure, accessing cores from peripheral communities generally becomes more time-consuming and expensive with distance. Similarly, issues of clean drinking water and affordable regular electricity supply often become more acute with increasing peripherality. Conversely, a lack of environmental pollutants in more-remote areas often means that their communities have cleaner water than those in less-remote areas where polluting activities are greater; the use of fertilisers and pesticides is a good example. Additionally, in many more-peripheral communities, often with government aid, household solar systems are becoming common; these typically involve a single pole-mounted panel (300-watt) beside each dwelling, enough to power an overnight light and daily charge small devices.

The nature of government services and education is less clearly linked to peripherality because of the existence of schools and health centres in many peripheral areas. In addition, the fact that schooling is free means that the uptake is high throughout Bua irrespective of peripherality. It was found that persons gaining tertiary qualifications did not normally return to their home communities during their working lives. For many rural Fiji communities, such as those in Bua, education is an investment not only for an individual and their family but also for the entire community (Kline et al. 2013). It has been noted that traditional methods of decision-making, especially related to environmental governance, in rural Pacific Island communities and others are becoming increasingly recognized as inadequate to deal with modern challenges, such as those associated with climate change (Kuruppu and Willie 2015; Nunn et al. 2014; Williams and Hardison 2013). It has also been argued that building national capacity in developing countries, such as most in the Pacific Islands region, does little to inform or improve environmental decision-making in their rural parts; in other words, in-country capacity for effective management of climate change, for example, focuses on the most densely-populated (core) areas rather than on their commonly vast peripheries. It seems likely that this situation will continue into the future, meaning that a priority for adapting to climate change in places like Bua is to empower communities to make decisions about their (environmental) futures that are both science-informed and effectively localized (Scott-Parker and Kumar 2018).

In terms of health, while community-based health centres were routinely accessed, the time and cost involved in reaching hospital facilities in town often proved prohibitive. Traditional remedies, sometimes prepared by specialist healers, were widely used, especially in more peripheral communities although the inefficacy of these remedies for treating ‘new’ ailments (like NCDs) is leading to a loss of trust in them. Questions about communications and technology found that, while many people in Buan communities are linked (mostly through phones) to internet, this is used mostly for social (rather than formal information acquisition) purposes. Radio remains the most widespread medium for knowledge transfer accessed in Bua as televisions are expensive and signals often unreliable. In terms of culture, tradition and religion, all people in Bua routinely utilize practices that could be regarded as ‘culturally-grounded’ in the sense that they derive from historical precedent; these range from house-building to food acquisition to coastal protection. All people in Bua are also religious to an extent where much everyday decision-making is spiritually informed; examples include food acquisition and consumption, the development or sustaining of familial/clan alliances, and a range of healing methods. All communities have some degree of climate, natural disaster prediction and response that is a legacy of their history. That said, in most communities, externally-sponsored responses (from Government or other external agencies) are often privileged, both on the grounds of perceived efficacy and ease. For example, when tropical cyclones approach, the people of Naivaka “want to trust what our ancestors told us but we listen to the radio”, a sentiment symptomatic of the subordination of traditional knowledge, at least at community (rather than household) level in many Buan communities. Finally, for diet and food production, it is clear that the more peripheral a particular community, the greater the amount of locally-produced food it consumes. Conversely, the closer a community is to ‘town’, the more imported (often nutritionally-poor) food it consumes. This situation is amplified by the opportunities for less-peripheral communities to grow/sell cash/surplus crops and to use the proceeds to buy (rather than grow) the food they routinely consume.

For the purpose of calculating easily-usable proxy measures of peripherality, data were reviewed in order to identify just a few variables likely to allow the rapid/simple measurement of peripherality in Bua and comparable island contexts in the Pacific. Some measures that were initially anticipated to be good measures of peripherality proved otherwise; straight-line distance from community to core is one such example, the routine cost of travel to school (paid by government) another. Some groups of questions yielded information that appears to have no bearing on the comparative peripherality of a community, so data analysis focused only on those that did measure this.

A practical proxy for accessibility of core areas is time/cost taken to reach these from particular communities. This is not something readily measured by straight-line distance but rather how communities engage with the various challenges of crossing a particular distance, challenges whose magnitude will determine how often they (can/might) access services available only in core areas. These two variables (time and cost) form the basis of Index 1, discussed in Section 5.

While it is difficult to justify excluding community size from any peripherality measure, notwithstanding its indifferent correlations with distance, a better measure of the nature of a particular community is found in the proportion of residents younger than 21 and those older than 65 (a dependency ratio). Rather than household income, which has only low correlations with distance, the proportion of community residents in fulltime employment was found to be a better measure of engagement with ‘core’ opportunities. While it is not particularly robust for Bua (where most communities have no residents in fulltime employment), this is considered a variable that would show up peripherality at larger scales, such as for the entire island of Vanua Levu. These variables (community size, dependency ratio, proportion employed fulltime) form the basis of Index 2, discussed in Section 5.

Finally, it was found that there is a number of variables which measure peripherality by the types of knowledges routinely used/accessed for decision-making by communities that in turn help identify their resilience-dependence character, something critical to measuring peripherality in many contexts (Felzensztein et al. 2013; Nunn and Kumar 2018). The number of mobile phones per capita, while admittedly not adequately capturing global knowledge access/use in Bua, is nevertheless considered key to measuring peripherality; a stage is likely to be reached in the future when novelty/social uses of mobile phones may be replaced by largely practical ones (Walshe et al. 2018; Watson and Duffield 2016). The use of (and implicit trust in) traditional versus ‘western’ healthcare is also considered a measure of actual peripherality (rather than simply distance along a core–periphery gradient). Similarly, the existence (or not) of locally-grounded traditional knowledge for coping with environmental shocks, whether short-onset (disasters) or longer-onset (like climate change), is considered a sound measure of peripherality. Diet is also considered as a measure of actual (rather than crude distance-measured) peripherality, specifically the degree of both access to and consumption of non-local foods by community members; the more peripheral a community, the less imported food it consumed. Finally, peripherality was considered measurable by the water and energy security of a particular community, especially the reliability, quality and quantity of drinking water and the ways the community produces electricity. These five variables (mobile phones, traditional medicine, traditional coping, diet, water and energy security) form the basis of Index 3, discussed in Section 5.

4.3. Development of Peripherality Indices

The dataset obtained for the 13 communities in Bua is intended to allow the formulation of quantitative indices that can be used to measure peripherality among (non-urban) communities in (archipelagic) Pacific Island and other developing-nation situations. Based on the findings above, three peripherality indices have been developed. The first index deals with Geography, the second with Population and Employment, the third with Tradition and Global Awareness. The ways in which these three indices are calculated are explained in Appendix B.

5. Discussion

The first part (Section 5.1) of this Discussion assesses the robustness of Indices A–C by demonstrating their relationships with various distance measures (from Table 1). The second part (Section 5.2) of this Discussion maps Indices A–C, which confirms that they capture distance-modulated peripherality yet also hints at the presence of complexities within the dataset that are likely attributable to small sample size and an unanticipated attractiveness of certain peripheral communities, especially for income generation from fishing. The final part (Section 5.3) of this Discussion links peripherality to autonomous coping capacity and argues that peripherality measurements are useful tools for assessing both a community’s needs and its strengths (for challenges like climate change) in such contexts.

5.1. Relating Indices A–C to Distance along Core–Periphery Gradient

Data used to calculate Indices A–C are tabulated in

Table 2. Calculation of peripherality indices.

Community	Index 1			Index 2				Index 3
	1A	1B	Index 1	2A	2B	2C	Index 2	3A	3B	3C	3D	3E	Index 3
Dalomo	1.80	1.80	2.50	0.75	1.80	0.75	1.04	2.20	2.50	2.25	2.43	2.25	2.76
Denimanu	0.75	0.60	0.16	1.80	0.90	0.75	1.15	3.00	2.00	1.87	2.06	2.55	2.66
Driti	1.80	0.75	1.41	0.90	3.00	0.75	1.98	1.80	2.00	3.00	2.25	2.70	2.83
Galoa	1.80	0.90	1.56	3.00	1.80	0.75	2.60	1.50	1.50	1.87	2.43	2.70	1.67
Koroinasolo	0.60	0.75	0.16	3.00	0.75	0.75	1.88	1.50	1.50	1.50	2.43	2.55	1.32
Lekutu	3.00	3.00	5.00	1.80	0.90	3.00	2.71	3.00	1.75	2.25	3.00	2.40	3.26
Logana	0.75	0.75	0.31	0.60	0.60	0.60	0.00	1.80	1.50	1.87	1.69	2.70	1.37
Naivaka	0.90	0.75	0.47	1.80	3.00	0.75	2.60	1.50	1.50	1.87	1.87	1.80	0.70
Naviqiri	1.80	0.90	1.56	1.80	1.80	0.75	1.77	1.50	1.50	1.87	2.25	2.25	1.25
Navunievu	1.80	0.90	1.56	0.75	0.75	0.60	0.21	1.80	2.00	1.87	2.25	2.10	1.68
Tacilevu	1.80	0.90	1.56	1.80	3.00	0.75	2.60	3.00	2.00	1.87	2.25	2.55	2.78
Tausa	1.80	1.80	2.50	0.75	1.80	0.60	0.94	2.20	2.00	2.62	1.87	2.40	2.40
Yaqaga	0.90	0.75	0.47	1.80	1.80	0.75	1.77	1.50	1.50	1.50	2.06	2.25	0.87

and plotted against the three distance measures in Figure 2.

Figure 2 shows that the three peripherality indices calculated are robust proxies for peripherality measured by distance, given the generally strong negative correlations exhibited. Of the three indices, the strongest correlations (−0.55, −0.78 and −0.81) are shown by Index 1 (Figure 2A); the lower the Index 1 value, the great the peripherality of a particular community. This is unsurprising, given that travel time and cost are expected to be linked to distance, yet it affirms the use of these variables to measure peripherality in places like Bua. Index 2 (Figure 2B) also shows strong correlations (−0.51, −0.45 and −0.31) that again confirm the validity of the three variables used to calculate this index as measures of peripherality. Aside from straight-line distance, similar comments apply to the correlations (Figure 2C) between distance and Index 3 (−0.15, −0.35), justifying the use of the variables behind it. With this validation of variables selected to measure peripherality in Bua, it is now possible to discuss the precise nature of this phenomenon here and its practical applications.

5.2. Insights from Mapping Indices A–C

Figure 3 shows maps (B–C) plotting the values of the three peripherality indices calculated above (see Table 2). The map of Index 1 (Figure 3B), the simplest of the three, shows a neat relationship between index and distance, with increasing peripherality from east to west. Yet it is interesting to note that Index 1 does not exhibit a simple relationship with distance or whether a particular community is located on the mainland or on a smaller island. Denimanu and Koroinasolo, one offshore, the other on the mainland, both have the same Index 1 values while offshore Yaqaga has a much higher value. Distance is clearly the key variable giving Denimanu its low value while access difficulties explain why Koroinasolo also has a low value. The high value for Yaqaga is because the distance to the sub-centre at Lekutu is far less than it is for Denimanu and even mainland locations like Logana and Koroinasolo from which access is more difficult.

Mapping of Index 2 gives a far less uniform picture (Figure 3C) that is superficially difficult to interpret, largely because of apparently anomalously high values for Naivaka and Tacilevu, something emanating from their comparatively large proportion of younger compared to elderly people. There may be many reasons for such situations, including those where life span is comparatively low. Similarly, Index 2 for many apparently more peripheral communities (like Denimanu, Driti, Koroinasolo, Naviqiri and Yaqaga) is higher than for others (like Dalomo, Logana, Navunievu and Tausa) that might be expected to have higher values. In most instances, this appears to be largely a function of community size, demonstrating that many apparently more isolated communities may in fact have quite large populations, perhaps representing community coherence (or a low desire to move out), a high proportion of returnees from living elsewhere, or even—as is the case for Denimanu, Driti and Yaqaga—the possibility of earning better wages (from fishing or kava growing) in the village than through employment in urban centres.

Index 3 gives a more conventional picture of peripherality in Bua (Figure 3D) similar to Index 1. Denimanu is the major anomaly, largely because of its relative prosperity endowed by commercial small-scale fishing and the excellence of its mobile phone signal availability.

5.3. Linking Peripherality to Autonomous Community Coping Capacity

Survey results show that peripherality is linked to autonomous community coping capacity; the more peripheral a community, the better equipped it feels to cope unaided with environmental adversity. This conclusion is based on four findings.

First, the dominance of older adults (grandparents) in more-peripheral communities ensures that traditional knowledge remains current in these communities, a tendency that is assisted by distance (as in Table 1) which typically reduces the amount of global knowledge reaching these communities. The converse is true. In less-peripheral (near-core) communities, the dominance of wage-earners means that there is less time to learn/indulge traditional (often time-consuming) behaviours; in consequence there is a preference for quick solutions (often unsustainable) ranging from methods of food acquisition, food choices as well as behaviour in advance of expected environmental adversity (from tropical cyclones to drought and climate change). The researchers stayed in many communities, noting that evenings in more-peripheral communities were often spent in socially-interactive group discussions whereas in less-peripheral communities it was more usual for people to stay in their own houses watching television.

Second, the time/cost it takes for residents of more-peripheral communities to access services in core locations is commonly prohibitive. This tendency is also exacerbated by peripherality; members of the most peripheral communities need the most cash to access these services—so they rarely do. It is therefore no surprise that people residing in more-peripheral communities in Bua tend to utilize more traditional ways of coping, a tendency that applies to healthcare as well as other ‘ways of doing things’ including responding to environmental threats.

Third, while schools are reasonably well distributed throughout Bua (see Figure 1), it is clear that the more academically-able school students will often be moved by their parents/communities from schools in more-peripheral locations to those—perceived as superior—in core locations. These students rarely return as adults to reside in their home communities. This leads to a situation in which young adults in peripheral communities are generally less well educated in ‘western’ ways and concomitantly inculcated more in traditional ways. The converse also applies.

Fourth, particular attention was given in this study to community knowledge about the causes of environmental change (especially disasters and climate change) and the optimal responses to this. People in more-peripheral communities invariably demonstrated a greater knowledge about the types of environmental change they had experienced; for example, several such communities recognized a link between rising sea level and shoreline erosion that was empirical rather than framed within a broader understanding of climate change. Such communities also identified appropriate local responses, including set-back, shoreline revegetation, and even iterative relocation; for example, the Navunievu community has a local law that requires every new dwelling (typically for a newly-married couple) to be built on higher ground at the rear of the coastal village, something that will drive its autonomous adaptation over the next few decades. In addition, knowledge in more-peripheral communities about the precursors of impending climate-linked events (especially tropical cyclones) was comparatively widespread and, while not always verifiable, points to a familiarity with environmental change that was conspicuously absent in less-peripheral communities; similar findings were reported from Malaysia and Samoa (Garay-Barayazarra and Puri 2011; Lefale 2010).

The practical nature of this research is in developing an easily-calculated and effective tool for measuring the diversity of rural communities in island nations, especially archipelagic ones like Fiji. The motivation for this research was the discovery that many agencies, both national and supranational in island countries, tend to treat all rural communities as having the same strengths and frailties, an approach that ignores community diversity of the kind explored here. Given the long history of failed interventions for livelihood sustainability, particularly in the face of future climate change, it was felt important that the efficacy of external investments of time and money should be optimized. Through the calculation of tools like Indices 1–3, it is possible to capture the diversity of autonomous community coping capacity. In this way, it should also be possible to design interventions that acknowledge strengths and weaknesses of a particular community through measurement of its peripherality.

For example, it seems clear that many of the communities that score low on Index 3 have considerable ability to help themselves and are in fact accustomed to doing so. Any externally-driven approach that seeks to sideline the autonomous coping ability of such communities will endanger their sustainability and may prove maladaptive. It is much better for external interventions in such communities to acknowledge inherent community coping capacity and incorporate it into their design.

6. Conclusions

This research explains how three indices that adequately capture community peripherality were calculated in rural archipelagic contexts, something applicable to other peripheral contexts, particularly in developing countries. This approach provides a tool for the rapid assessment of peripherality in similar geographical situations. Among the main applications of calculating peripherality in this way is the demonstration that the autonomous (traditional) capacity of such rural communities to cope with environmental adversity (like climate change or disasters) is something that varies. Such information could be used to inform policy and the design of strategies for disaster risk management or climate change adaptation rather than making glib assumptions about all rural/remote communities being equally unequipped to deal with such challenges compared to their core/urban counterparts (Maru et al. 2014; Nunn et al. 2014).

As the pace of 21st-century climate change increases over the next few decades, it will become increasingly important to devise and implement pathways for sustaining such communities in the face of its multifarious impacts. Understanding community peripherality, its implications for vulnerability and resilience, and all this implies permits the development of precise (community-specific) interventions for community sustainability. In addition, as external funding for climate-change adaptation diminishes—as appears probable as problems multiply in donor countries—it will become increasingly important to support the autonomous coping capacity of such rural communities by engaging with their strengths and underwriting their frailties.