Effects of Market Participation on Community Perceived Adaptive

Home , Cyclone Ofa, Cyclone Val, Falealupo, Frank Solomon, Geography of Samoa

EFFECTS OF MARKET PARTICIPATION ON COMMUNITY PERCEIVED ADAPTIVE

CAPACITY AND RESILIENCE IN RURAL SAMOA

JONATHAN BRENT VICKERS

(Under the direction of Donald R. Nelson)

ABSTRACT

This dissertation determines the effects of increased market participation on perceived adaptive capacity and resilience in the village of Falealupo, Samoa. Approaching the intellectually challenging problem of resilience from the perspectives of local community members, the researcher produced mixed sets of quantitative and qualitative data on local adaptive capacity. First, the research discussed recent droughts and cyclones with community members. Then, the researcher used the analysis of these interviews to develop contextual variables of adaptive capacity, including variables that measured household participation in the market and household social capital. The research then measured perceived household adaptive capacity in each of the households. Statistical comparison of the variables suggested that increased market participation was not associated with a reduction in the size of household’s social capital, measured in terms of locally-based immediate family members. A qualitative analysis of household social networks likewise suggested that economic has influenced a change in the sphere of a household’s social network from the extended kinship group to the immediate family, but that kinship plays a large role in promoting adaptive capacity in rural villages. The findings of this study are important because they demonstrate that role that local social institutions play in shaping the interactions between variables of adaptive capacity. The findings also suggest that community members’ perspectives of resilience can be used to produce contextual variables to measure economic and social attributes of adaptive capacity.

INDEX WORDS: Social dimensions of environmental change, social-ecological resilience,

adaptive capacity, social capital, increased market participation, mixed-

subsistence households, Samoa, Pacific Islands

EFFECTS OF MARKET PARTICIPATION ON COMMUNITY PERCEIVED ADAPTIVE CAPACITY AND RESILIENCE IN RURAL SAMOA

JONATHAN BRENT VICKERS

BA, University of California, Berkeley, 2002

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Georgia in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2015

Jonathan Brent Vickers

EFFECTS OF MARKET PARTICIPATION ON COMMUNITY PERCEIVED ADAPTIVE

CAPACITY AND RESILIENCE IN RURAL SAMOA

JONATHAN BRENT VICKERS

Major Professor: Donald R. Nelson Committee: Bram Tucker Julie Velásquez Runk Paul Shankman

Electronic Version Approved:

Suzanne Barbour Dean of Graduate School The University of Georgia December 2015

DEDICATION

To my mother and sisters for their endless love and support. To my father, ia manuia lou malaga. And to my wife, alofa ia ʻoe, I will always love you.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wrote this dissertation with strong guidance and support from many amazing people.

First, I would like to thank my advisor, Don Nelson, for his mentorship. He challenged me to think critically, and he always demonstrated enormous patience and understanding. Calling from

Brazil to Samoa in order to discuss my research methods with me is just one example of his outstanding commitment. I would also to thank my committee members: Paul Shankman, Bram

Tucker, and Julie Velásquez Runk. Each provided their specialized insight into this dissertation, and their helpful comments have been invaluable contributions to my professional development.

I would also like to thank my research assistants in Falealupo: Sene Iosefa, Filipo Mapusaga, and

Puʻa Lava. Without their help and friendship, I could not have completed this project. Thank you also to everyone else in Falealupo village who gave me, my wife, and my friends their love and warmth. Tuitoga Ben Leavai and his family were especially generous with their contributions of food and friendship. Thank you to Peni Leavai and the rest of the Leavai family in Apia for connecting me with their family in Falealupo, and for providing me with such a wonderful place to live. Annie and I will always consider our time living together in Falealupo as one of the happiest times in our lives. Thank you to Jordan Sims, Scott Tupper, and Pierre

Naudé for their help and friendship while in Falealupo. We may have starved if not for your fishing skills. And lastly, thank you to my family and my wife, Annie, for their unconditional love and support throughout this entire process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... v

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1

1.2 Anthropology and Adaptation ...... 6

1.3 Vulnerability, Resilience, and Adaptive Capacity ...... 12

1.4 Adaptation and Adaptive Capacity in the Pacific Islands Region ...... 22

1.5 Structure of Dissertation ...... 27

References ...... 30

2 RESEARCH SITE AND METHODS ...... 40

2.1 Historical Context of Samoa ...... 40

2.2 Contemporary Samoa and Falealupo ...... 48

2.3 Research Methods ...... 55

References ...... 58

3 DEVELOPING VARIABLES OF COMMUNITY-PERCEIEVED ADAPTIVE

CAPACITY...... 61

3.1 Introduction ...... 63

3.2 Background on Adaptive Capacity ...... 66

3.3 Common Strategies for Assessing Adaptive Capacity ...... 69

3.4 Research Site and Methods ...... 72

3.5 Results from First Phase Interviews ...... 76

3.6 Results from Second Phase Semi-Structured Interviews ...... 79

3.7 Results from Third Phase Structured Interviews ...... 84

3.8 Discussion ...... 88

3.9 Conclusion ...... 92

References ...... 92

4 MORE MONEY, MORE FAMILY: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGHER

LEVELVS OF MARKET PARTICIPATION AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN THE

CONTEXT OF ADAPTIVE CAPACITY IN SAMOA ...... 98

4.1 Introduction ...... 100

4.2 Site Selection and Research Methods ...... 104

4.3 Defining Household and Market Participation in Samoa ...... 106

4.4 Defining Social Capital in Context of Adaptive Capacity in Samoa...... 109

4.5 Comparing Household Variables ...... 112

4.6 Qualitative Analyses of Variables ...... 116

4.7 Discussion ...... 118

4.8 Conclusion ...... 122

References ...... 123

5 IMMEDIATE FAMILY FIRST: EFFECTS OF MARKET PARTICIPATION ON

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY AND RESILIENCE IN RURAL SAMOA ...... 128

5.1 Introduction ...... 130

vii

5.2 Adaptive Capacity and Social Capital ...... 133

5.3 Adaptive Capacity in Pre-Market Samoa ...... 135

5.4 Market Participation and Social Change in Samoa ...... 138

5.5 Research Site and Methods ...... 141

5.6 Resource Exchange Networks ...... 144

5.7 Responses to Recent Ceremonial Faʻalavelave ...... 147

5.8 Responses to Recent Climatic Disturbances ...... 151

5.9 Discussion and Conclusion ...... 153

References ...... 157

6 CONCLUSION ...... 163

References ...... 165

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 3.1: Frequencies of Attributes of Community-Perceived Adaptive Capacity ...... 77

Table 3.2: Sources of Household Incomes ...... 81

Table 3.3: Funding Sources for Water Tanks ...... 82

Table 3.4: Funding Sources for $100 WST ...... 82

Table 3.5: Household Resource Exchange Networks ...... 84

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of Household Variables ...... 113

Table 4.2: Linear Regression Model Summary ...... 115

Table 5.1: Sources of Money for Ceremonial Faʻalavelave ...... 150

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1: Map of Oceania ...... 53

Figure 2.2: Map of Samoa ...... 54

Figure 2.3: Map of Falealupo, Samoa ...... 54

Figure 2.4: Picture of Falealupo-tai ...... 55

Figure 3.1: Distribution of the Market Participation Ratio Variable ...... 86

Figure 3.2: Distribution of the Livelihood Diversity Variable ...... 87

Figure 3.3: Distribution of Local Social Networks Variable ...... 88

Figure 4.1: Distribution of the Adult Children in Falealupo Variable ...... 112

Figure 4.2: Distribution of Nuclear Family Size Variable ...... 115

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Introduction

The objective of this dissertation is to determine the effects of higher levels of market participation on community-perceived adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in

Samoa. Climate models predict that Samoa and other Pacific Islands will experience an increase in climate variability, including more frequent cyclones and prolonged droughts (IPCC 2007).

The village of Falealupo, on the Samoan island of Savai’i, has a history of cyclones, frequent droughts, and other climatic disturbances. These disturbances have serious impacts on the peoples’ wellbeing and subsistence-based livelihoods, which rely heavily on taro and other rain- fed agriculture. Meanwhile, households in Falealupo and other rural Samoan villages have also been participating to varying degrees in the global market (Pitt 1970, O’Meara 1990, Paulson

1993). Different levels of household market participation may influence the resilience of those in rural Samoa and other less-developed communities to climate change.

There are two contrasting perspectives on the influence that higher levels of market participation have on the vulnerabilities of those in less-developed communities to climate change. In one perspective, less-developed communities such as Samoa are vulnerable to climate change because community members lack the financial assets to buffer increased climatic disturbances (IPCC 2007, World Bank 2010). Most Samoans and other Pacific

Islanders have low levels of development in terms of their incomes, their access to technology,

1 and their access to health and other services (Lockwood 1971, Fairburn 1985, Shankman 1993).

Considering that a disaster is the result of both natural phenomena (e.g., cyclones) and existing social conditions (Oliver Smith 2004, Berkes 2007), many have argued that poverty and limited access to services and technology are some of the underlying social pre-conditions that make communities vulnerable to disasters (IPCC 2007, Berkes 2007, Brooks et al 2005). This perspective focuses mainly on the resources of community members and not on the underlying social institutions that enable community members to mobilize resources during climatic disturbances.

In the other perspective on vulnerability, community members are vulnerable because formal and informal social institutions constrain them from being able to mobilize resources during a climate disturbance (Sen 1981). The IPCC (2007) recognizes two main sets of adaptive capacity, or characteristics, that enable people to respond to climate stress: 1) technological and economic characteristics and 2) social characteristics. Social attributes of adaptive capacity include knowledge, governance, social capital, and other characteristics that are embedded in the social system (IPCC 2007). Many of these social characteristics define the rules that govern community members’ access to resources during a climatic disturbance. For example, social capital amongst family and other community members enabled many Samoans to share food and money during Cyclone Ofa in 1990 (Paulson 1993, Sutherland et al 2005) and Solomon Islanders to share food during a tsunami in 2007 (Lauer 2014). According to this perspective, community members are not vulnerable because of a lack of resources, but because they are unable to command resources during disturbances.

These two perspectives on vulnerability can conflict with one another. The IPCC warns that economic growth may be eroding local resource exchange networks, thereby reducing the

2 contribution of this social factor to adaptive capacity (Paulson 1993, Pelling and Uitto 2001,

Sutherland et al 2007, Lauer 2014). Pacific Islanders and others in less-developed communities have had high resilience to climate disturbances because their social institutions promote resource sharing amongst family and other community members during climatic disturbances

(Pelling and Uitto 2001, IPCC 2007, Lauer 2014). Yet because sharing financial resources can hinder individuals’ ability to succeed in the market, higher levels of market participation can undermine the development of social capital amongst community members (Lauer 2014).

Studies have demonstrated that higher levels of market participation were associated with less resource sharing amongst community members in response to natural hazards (Campbell 1990,

Paulson 1993, Lauer 2014). It is therefore believed that higher levels of market participation will ultimately undermine adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the Pacific Islands and other less-developed communities.

Although studies have revealed situations in which economic development has caused a reduction in social capital, the influence of higher levels of market participation on adaptive capacity is socially contextual Higher levels of market participation reduce social capital in some situations, but strengthen it in others (Coleman 1988. Putnam 1993, Furstenberg 2005).

For example, market participation in Inuit communities has reduced food-sharing among non-kin members, but has bolstered it among relatives (Collings et al 1998). Few studies have explored the relationship between levels of market participation and social capital in the context of adaptive capacity and resilience to climatic disturbances (Eakin et al 2014). Analyses of the interactions between economic and social attributes of adaptive capacity will help researchers to better understand the potential conflict between the two contrasting perspectives on vulnerability.

In Falealupo, I explored the effects that economic development and higher levels of market participation have on social attributes of adaptive capacity. I approached the intellectually challenging problem of resilience from the perspectives of local community members rather than outside experts. The significance of this study comes from the terms in which community members described their experiences with recent climatic disturbances. Their descriptions of these disturbances helped illuminate the social conditions that enabled adaptation

(Marshall and Marshall 2007, Lauer 2014). Using the experiences of community members to define adaptive capacity and resilience, I compared community members’ varying levels of market participation, measured in terms of market-related livelihood strategies, to other attributes that community members perceived to have enabled their recovery from recent droughts and cyclones.

This dissertation has three goals. The first goal is to translate the experiences of community members into variables that can be used to measure community-perceived adaptive capacity. Currently, most researchers and practitioners measure adaptive capacity in local communities either using a standardized questionnaire (Grootaert and Bastelaer 2001, Murphy et al 2015) or community-mapping and other participatory methods (Ayers and Forsyth 2009).

Standardized questionnaires are used to measure economic and social attributes of adaptive capacity in local settings, but the variables are robust and not socially contextual (Grootaert and

Bastelaer 2001, Nelson et al 2007b, Defiesta and Rapera 2014 Murphy et al 2015). Participatory methods are used to discuss technical and economic attributes of adaptive capacity in the local context, but do not produce variables to measure social attributes (Sutherland et al 2005, Ayers and Forsyth 2009, Demura 2010, USAID 2013). In this dissertation, I demonstrate that using community members’ experiences with climatic disturbances produces community-perceived

4 variables of adaptive capacity, which include social attributes such as local social capital. Being able to identify and measure social attributes of adaptive capacity enhances the understanding of adaptation in the local context and broadens the discussion of potential adaptive strategies.

The second goal is to compare the community-perceived variables of adaptive capacity, and determine if increased levels of households’ market participation predict variation in household social capital. Empirical evidence demonstrates the contributions of both economic and social attributes of adaptive capacity, particularly social capital (Bebbington 1990, Yohe and

Tol 2002, Adger 2003, Thompkins and Adger 2005, Eakin 2006, Smit and Wandel 2006).

However, economic and social attributes of adaptive capacity are often considered in isolation from one another and relationships among these variables are poorly understood (Eakin et al

2014). This dissertation demonstrates that increased market participation has not reduced local social capital in the context of adaptive capacity in rural Samoa. This dissertation also argues that the social institutions that give incentives for relatives to live in the same villages and that promote resource exchanges between relatives are responsible for shaping the relationship between increased levels of market participation the size of family-based social networks.

The third goal of this dissertation is to use an ethnographic approach to determine the effects of higher levels of household market participation on the strength of kinship networks in terms of adaptive capacity in Samoa. Scholars have argued that indigenous Pacific Island people have had high resilience in terms of their ability to buffer and adapt to climatic and other environmental change because of the high levels of social capital within their family and community-based social networks (Paulson 1993, Pelling and Uitto 2001). Some of these authors suggest that the individualism associated with market participation will reduce the role of family and other community-based social networks in providing resilience in these communities

(Paulson 1993, Sutherland et al 2004, Lauer 2014). In this dissertation, I demonstrate that in the context of adaptive capacity, market participation has reduced the sphere of the kinship network from the extended family to the immediate family, but that market participation also enables

Samoans to give and share more with their immediate family members in response to climatic disturbances. Therefore, market participation has strengthened the role of kinship networks in providing adaptive capacity and resilience to households in rural Samoan villages.

The goals of this dissertation have been guided by three bodies of academic theory.

Cultural ecology focuses on adaptive strategies and associated social institutions. This body of theory helps to frame the social dimensions of climate change, which are difficult to address when using resource-centric perspectives on adaptation. The second body of literature focuses on adaptive capacity. Enhancing community members’ attributes of adaptive capacity will reduce their vulnerability and bolster their resilience to climate change. However, it is difficult to identify social attributes of adaptive capacity, and therefore climate change adaptation strategies are limited to those that focus on economic and technological attributes. The third body of literature focuses on Pacific Island adaptive strategies and adaptive capacities. A case study on Pacific Island adaptive strategies, which are based on mixed-subsistence livelihoods, kinship networks, and resource exchange networks, will shed light on the interactions among economic and social attributes of adaptive capacity.

1.2 Anthropology and Adaptation

Using a perspective that is framed by cultural ecology research will provide valuable insight into the social dimensions of climate change adaptation. Climate change adaptation refers to collective non-biological response to actual or expected climatic change and

6 disturbances (IPCC 2014). The majority of climate change adaptation research focuses on improving communities’ financial and technological resources in order to reduce the potential harm of climatic disturbances (Nelson et al 2007, Engle 2011, IPCC 2014). The cultural ecology perspective on adaptation, which is rooted in the field of anthropology, focuses on understanding a community’s adaptive strategy, or mode of production, and how it enables community members to respond to environmental, economic, and other pressures. The cultural ecology perspective improves the overall understanding of climate change adaptation.

The cultural ecology perspective was founded by Julian Steward and primarily focused on analyzing relationships among local environmental variables and local social institutions.

Steward (1955) posited that human populations adapted to their local environments through learned behavior that was embedded in the local social system. According to Steward, the core of a social system was its subsistence practice, and which subsistence practices were advantageous in the local environment. For example, non-migratory, small game hunting was a subsistence pattern well-adapted to arid environments with scattered food sources, such as those found in southern California and northern Australia. Each subsistence practice was then associated with certain sociopolitical patterns and social institutions that helped to reinforce and reproduce the core subsistence practice. For example, “patrilineal bands” characterized the sociopolitical groups found in both southern California and northern Australia, two areas with similar environments but separate cultural histories. Trends amongst environmental types, social structure, and social institutions recurred cross-culturally with great regularity (Steward 1955).

This perspective on adaptation established a foundation on which anthropologists have since continued to build.

After Steward, other cultural ecologists continued to study human-environmental interactions involved with different adaptive strategies. Some of this research focused on agricultural systems found in Pacific Islands and many other parts of the world. Research on agricultural systems demonstrated associations between the complexity of social systems and the amount of food and other resources produced per unit of land (Sahlins 1958, 1963). Scholars also demonstrated that intensifying agriculture, and therefore increasing the production per unit of land, is an adaptive response to population pressures (Boserup 1965, Netting 1993). These results show that adaptive strategies are responses to many environmental variables, including population and productivity. In addition, research suggested that different agricultural adaptive strategies were associated with sets of social institutions (Netting 1993). In intensive agricultural societies, nuclear families generally produce food on private lands, whereas in extensive agricultural communities, extended kin-groups generally produce food on large tracts of communal land (Netting 1993). These studies and many others have helped to frame the anthropological perspective that local social systems help to reduce the pressures and risks associated with local environments.

While many studies in anthropology have demonstrated the links among adaptive strategies and local environmental pressures, other studies suggest that local social systems are also responses to broader political and economic forces. According to Eric Wolf (1957, 1966), who was inspired by Marx and others who had focused on class struggles, peasantry and indigenous cultural systems were not only the results of cultural adaptations to the local environments. These marginal communities were also responding to the political and economic conditions under which wealthier communities systematically undermined the ability of poor to develop (Geertz 1963, Wallerstein 1974). For example, rice production systems in Indonesia

8 were responses to both the economic demands of the Dutch colonialists and local population pressures (Geertz 1963). Similar studies demonstrated that local indigenous subsistence strategies that result in deforestation and environmental degradation are linked to the often- distant demands of the global capitalist system (Shankman 1999, West 2006, Moran 2010).

Other authors have demonstrated that in addition to political and economic forces that extend beyond the local environment, local adaptive strategies are also responses to unique historical conditions, including colonialism (Wallerstein 1974. Wolf 1982, West 2006, Moran 2010).

These studies, often characterized as political ecology, suggested that environmental analyses could not ignore the economic, political, and historical conditions linking local communities to global systems.

Since broadening the dimensions of adaptation, anthropologists have continued to develop an understanding of simultaneous responses of local communities to a variety of variables. For example, recent archaeological research has shown that the evolution of social systems results from ongoing responses to environmental, social, historical, and political forces

(Kirch 1984, 2007, Redman 1999). Aswani (1999) has likewise demonstrated that collective resource management is the result of ecological, historical, internal political, and geographic conditions. Additionally, research has demonstrated that local human systems are not isolated from one another; indeed, even seemingly closed corporate communities actually depend on outside sources for economic sustainability (Netting 1990, Kottak 1997, Kirch 2007). This and other research has helped to demonstrate that adaptive strategies are the result of collective responses to multiple pressures and variables.

In addition to linking local decision-making to external forces, research also suggests that adaptive strategies can be based on cultural preferences and other non-adaptive factors. Testing

9 the rates of return of different foraging strategies has shown that rural indigenous people often use food-production strategies that maximize resource efficiency, but that sometimes foraging strategies are associated with particular cultural preferences and social norms (Ostrom 1990,

2000, Aswani 1997, 1999, Tucker 2007). Likewise, livelihoods analyses, which look at the activities that people use to meet social and economic obligations (Scoones 1998, Ellis 2000), show that local community members use culturally esteemed livelihood strategies to respond to larger environmental, political, and economic forces (Velásquez Runk et al 2007). Therefore, adaptive strategies are often effective collective responses to a variety of internal and external environmental, political, and historical variables, and are also often linked to social preferences and prestige.

A recent body of anthropology research on adaptation has focused on the impacts of economic globalization on indigenous communities and social institutions. Responding to ethnocentric economic development models, like those that suggested that economic growth ultimately reduces social and economic inequalities (Kuznets 1955), many anthropologists of the mid-twentieth century used ethnographic studies to show that capitalism has increased inequality in rural, indigenous communities (Bohannan 1997[1955], Wolf 1957, Cancain 1974, Scott 1976,

1985, Lansing 2007 [1991]). Transitioning from subsistence-based economies to market-based economies causes changes in social relations (Scott 1976). Subsistence-based social relations promote reciprocity within social networks, but market-based relationships promote profit maximization and exploitation between consumers and suppliers (Scott 1976). In Bali, scientific water management systems replaced traditional water management systems in efforts to increase rice production (Lansing 2007 [1991]). The traditional water management system had promoted collaboration among Balinese villages, and the loss of collaboration due to its replacement

10 ultimately caused widespread pest outbreaks and crop failures in many villages (Lansing 2007

[1991]). In these and other examples, market integration and increased market participation disrupted social institutions that promoted equality and collaboration and reduced vulnerability among community members.

More recent studies show that market integration does produce social change, but that many communities have adapted to the global market while managing its impacts on traditional social institutions (Shipton 1989, Bernal 1994, Collings et al 1998, Lesorogol 2003). Empirical evidence from foraging communities in the Amazonian rainforest demonstrates that economic development has not accentuated social inequalities in small, relatively autocratic economies

(Godoy et al 2007). Additional evidence shows that community members continue to participate in traditional exchange-based relationships in addition to valuing success in the cash market

(Collings et al 1998, Gurven 2002, Evans 2001). In some contexts, the ability to earn more money has enabled some to give and share more with their family and other community members. For example, Tongans earn cash in order to use it during traditional resource exchange ceremonies (Evans 2001). In addition, Tsimane with more experience with money and the market economy were more likely to give more to their community members (Gurven 2002).

These works suggested that community members responded to the forces and opportunities of global market while simultaneously responding to social, environmental, and other variables.

Anthropologists have shown that patterns of behavior embedded in local social systems help people to respond to environmental, economic, and social pressures. This perspective on adaptation differs from the dominant perspective of most climate change adaptation studies, which focus on the resources and assets of community members (McCarthy et al 2001,

Pettengell and Oxfam 2002, O’Brien et al 2004, IPCC 2007, Swanson et al 2007, Osbahr et al

2008, Acosta- Milchlik and Espaldon 2008, Bachofen et al 2009, Forde et al 2010). Focusing on the assets and resources of community members is important because it helps to understand the capacity of community members to adapt to climate change. The anthropological perspective on adaptation improves the overall understanding of climate change adaptation because it analyzes the collective actions taken to mobilize their assets and resources in order to respond to simultaneously respond to climatic and other pressures.

1.3 Vulnerability, Resilience, and Adaptive Capacity

Studying adaptive capacity will provide insights on climate change adaptation strategies, which aim to reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience to climate change. Adaptive capacity is defined as the set of characteristics that enable people to respond to current and anticipated stress

(IPCC 2007, Nelson et al 2007). Researchers and practitioners favor focusing on adaptive capacity because it is a component of both the vulnerability and resilience frameworks, which are sometimes at odds with each other. All communities have unique sets of adaptive capacity, and adaptive capacity almost always has positive impacts on communities. There are two sets of adaptive capacity, 1) economic and technological attributes and 2) social attributes. Because these attributes are embedded in local social institutions, it is difficult for researchers and practitioners to identify, measure, and discuss social attributes of adaptive capacity. Improving the ability to recognize social attributes of adaptive capacity will expand the options for climate change adaptation strategies at the local, national, and regional levels.

One of the main approaches to understanding climate change adaptation is rooted in the vulnerability framework. Social-ecological system, or SES, vulnerability is defined as the degree to which a system is unable to cope with adverse effects (McCarthy et al 2001, Adger

2006). SES vulnerability studies focus on the shocks and stresses that disrupt a SES, the response of the SES’s physical and social components to the disruption, and the capacity for adaptive action following the disruption (Adger 2006). Much of SES research focuses on evaluating the potential impacts of hazards on human occupants based on the biophysical conditions of a system (Adger 2006, McLaughlin and Dietz 2008). For example, a low-lying coastal community is vulnerable to sea surges, and agriculturalists in arid environments are vulnerable to drought. Or, a community with a robust resource base is less vulnerable to natural hazards than a community with limited resources. In these examples, vulnerability is the result of insufficient infrastructure and natural resource levels.

In addition to biophysical characteristics, other research focuses on the social and economic conditions that shape community members’ vulnerability to physical disturbances

(Oliver Smith 2004, Brooks et al 2005, Adger 2006, Berkes 2007, Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon

2008, Nelson and Finan 2009). For example, Brooks et al (2005) used national-level data to demonstrate that vulnerability at the national level, measured in terms of losses incurred from hazards, was more strongly associated with indicators for poor governance than with national

GDP. Likewise, Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon (2008) found that support with agricultural production only reduced vulnerability to environmental change when it was coupled with market support. Along the same lines, anthropologists Nelson and Finan (2009) suggested that vulnerability is not synonymous with poverty, but with socially instituted inequalities such as those inherent in the political-economic structure of northeast Brazil that preclude any escape from poverty. This research and other studies demonstrate that, in addition to the lack of sufficient biophysical resources to prevent harm, vulnerability is also caused by social conditions

13 that limit community members’ access to resources before, during, and after climate disturbances.

The vulnerability framework is useful for analyzing climate change adaption, but also has its shortcomings. The vulnerability approach is valuable because it is an outcome-based perspective that enables researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to assess SES components and produce solutions that will reduce the risks associated with climate change (Nelson et al

2007, Engle 2011). For example, sea-walls reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities to flooding caused by sea surges (Sutherland et al 2005). However, climate change models predict that many of the world’s regions will soon face a variety of new and often unpredictable environmental conditions (IPCC 2007, World Bank 2010, Samoa Meteorological Division

2011). While sea-walls and other technology will help to cope with specific stresses, they fail to address long-term resilience to varying climatic and economic conditions (Nelson and Finan

2009, Lemos et al 2013, Eakin et al 2014). Researchers therefore consider alternative approaches that offer better, more holistic long-term strategies for climate change adaptation.

The resilience framework offers a different perspective than the vulnerability approach for understanding climate change adaptation. The resilience framework recognizes that SESs are innately vulnerable to climatic and other disturbances. For example, shop-owners in rural

Solomon Island communities had the most financial assets and were therefore the least vulnerable in their communities to economic shocks (Lauer 2014). However, these same shop- owners incurred the most damages in their communities during a recent tsunami, and recovered the slowest from them (Lauer 2014). A resilient household, community, or other SES manages a number of different disturbances without fundamental change (Holling and Gunderson 2002,

Nelson et al 2007, Lauer 2014). A resilient shop-owner cannot prevent disturbances, but is able to adjust and recover from disturbances without major financial or other setbacks.

Building resilience improves the capacities of community members to continuously respond to reoccurring and novel disruptions, rather than to only a few specific ones (Nelson et al 2007, Lemos et al 2013, Eakin et al 2014). Food-sharing networks are common social institutions that enable members of less-developed communities to buffer a large range of economic, physical, and climatic disturbances (Paulson 1993, Pelling and High 2005).

Livelihood diversity also provides community members with resilience to a range of climatic and other disturbances (Eakin 2006). Using the resilience framework, researchers and practitioners consider strategies that will enable community members to respond to many perceived and novel impacts of climate change.

The resilience framework also stresses system flexibility rather than system stability.

Researchers that use the resilience framework focus on the flexibility of system components during disturbances rather than on the changes in resource levels (Holling 1973, Holling and

Gunderson 2002). For example, Solomon Island communities displayed high levels of resilience during recent tsunamis because their flexible land tenure system enabled community members to quickly relocate their homes and farms (Lauer 2014). Furthermore, the ability to plan, to learn, and to reorganize livelihoods were the most important characteristics associated with Australian fishers’ resilience to fishing policy changes (Marshall and Marshall 2007). Resilience research aims to identify and improve conditions that enable community members to reorganize and adjust to climate change-related pressures.

Another reason the resilience framework is a valuable approach to evaluating climate change adaptation is because it considers multiple states of an SES, which can also be useful for

15 analyzing climate change adaptation. Much like a certain landscape can either be a forest or grassland, a SES can have different social and economic components with different functions

(Folke 2006, Nelson et al 2007). For example, northern Arizona deliberately transformed from agricultural-based system to tourism-based system in order to reduce risks associated with population and climate pressures (Nelson et al 2007). Although a system transformation can possibly increase vulnerabilities of at least some people in an SES (Lauer 2014), the capacity for system transformation expands the options for climate change adaptation (Folke 2006, Nelson et al 2007, Engle 2011). Being able to consider multiple states enables researchers, practitioners, and community members to discuss the possibility for more resilient and more equitable adaptive strategies in the face of climate change.

Like the vulnerability framework, there are both advantages and disadvantages to using the resilience framework. One of the main weaknesses of the resilience framework is that it presents solutions that do not translate easily into policy (Engle 2011). The resilience of a specific system depends on interactions with components at different scales (Engle 2011). For example, the social, economic, and political components affecting a certain watershed rarely align within the natural boundaries of the watershed system (Engle 2011). While resilience thinking helps to develop a large range of potential adaptation solutions, implementing many of these solutions may be difficult or impractical

Although both the vulnerability and resilience frameworks offer useful lenses for understanding climate change adaptation, their different perspectives can sometimes be at odds.

Vulnerability only addresses solutions to specific risks, and resilience is policy-oriented and difficult to practice in action (Engle 2011). However, the benefits and limits of each approach do not necessarily complement each other (Nelson et al 2007, Engle 2011). Because of their

16 different focuses, scholars from the different approaches may not agree on the ultimate source of the problem, or on policy that addresses the problem (Engle 2011). For example, drought-relief programs help to reduce farmers’ vulnerabilities to droughts in northeast Brazil, but these programs also reassert the patronage-based relationships among poor farmers and rich government officials that ultimately prevent escape from poverty (Nelson and Finan 2009). In this context, solutions that aim to reduce vulnerability are compromising the goals of SES resilience to climatic change. Researchers therefore want to use components that will satisfy the goals of both the vulnerability and resilience frameworks.

Adaptive capacity is a component that bridges the vulnerability and resilience frameworks approaches and provides positive strategies for adapting to climate change (Turner et al, 2003; Nelson et al, 2007; Engle, 2011). In the vulnerability literature, adaptive capacity reduces the negative impacts caused by a stress (Smit et al 2001). In other words, adaptive capacity affects vulnerability by modulating the exposure and sensitivity to disturbances (Engle

2011). For example, a coastal village has adaptive capacity if it is able reduce its exposure to sea surges. In the resilience literature, adaptive capacity is the ability to buffer disturbances while in a current state, and the ability to transform into a more desirable state (Nelson et al 2007). A farmer with adaptive capacity can weather a drought through actions such as increasing irrigation, or can transform to a new livelihood that is less dependent on water. Adaptive capacity bridges the vulnerability and resilience approaches because it is a universally positive system component (Engle 2011). Strategies aimed to bolster SES resilience to climate change will inevitably decrease SES vulnerability to risks associated with climate change, and vice versa. In addition, adaptive capacity is commonly described in terms of attributes that can be addressed through policy and projects (Engle 2011). Therefore, by focusing on building

17 adaptive capacity, stakeholders of all backgrounds are able to discuss tactile options for improving the ability of communities to buffer climate change.

Adaptive capacity has two main sets of attributes (IPCC 2007). The first set of attributes addresses technological and economic SES components (IPCC 2007, Nelson et al 2007).

Technological attributes of adaptive capacity are the physical assets that reduce vulnerability to disturbances. Technology includes seeds, sea-walls, weather-forecast systems, water tanks, and other engineered solutions that improve the ability of households and communities to cope with disturbances (IPCC 2007). While many of these characteristics reduce vulnerability to specific disturbances, they can also enhance community members’ general capacities. For example, in addition to reducing coastal community members’ vulnerability to tsunamis, sea-walls protect infrastructure that enhances community members’ abilities to store and mobilize assets.

Improving technology in less-developed communities is therefore one of the main focuses of most climate change adaptation strategies.

Economic attributes of adaptive capacity are also the focus of most climate change adaptation strategies. Economic attributes of adaptive capacity are associated with financial wealth and earned incomes (IPCC 2007). Cash is flexible, storable, universally accepted, and can easily be transferred into other goods and resources in response to environmental change (De

Soto 1996, Ellis 2000). Cash can be used to purchase food and other goods necessary to cope with and recover from extreme weather events; it can also be used to invest in new technologies and other resources that facilitate adaptation. Without cash or other forms of financial wealth, people may be severely limited in their ability to adapt to environmental change (Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon 2008). For example, even though farmers in the Philippines could anticipate environmental changes, they lacked the financial assets to make adaptive changes to their

18 agricultural practices (Acosta-Michlik & Espaldon, 2008). Many climate change adaptation strategies therefore work to improve community members’ capacities to participate in the market and increase their financial wealth.

There are other economic attributes of adaptive capacity besides financial wealth, including livelihood diversity. Livelihoods are determined by a household or community’s financial, social, natural, physical, human, and cultural assets and the social institutions that mediate those assets (Scoones 1998, Ellis 2000, Eakin 2006, Velásquez Runk et al 2007).

Having the flexibility to use different livelihood strategies to access assets, such as food and cash, and make a living enables individuals to adapt to environmental change (Ellis 2000, Eakin

2006). Eakin (2006) demonstrated that Mexican farmers who had access to alternative livelihoods strategies, such as wage labor, were able to better cope with weather-related crisis.

Therefore, many climate change adaptation strategies focus on increasing community members’ livelihood diversities and the ability to rely on non-climate sensitive livelihoods during climate- related stress.

The second set of attributes of adaptive capacity, which can overlap with the set of economic and technological attributes, comprises social attributes. Social attributes of adaptive capacity are the institutions embedded in local social systems that enable community members to buffer and respond to climatic disturbances (IPCC 2007). One social attribute of adaptive capacity is social capital (Coleman 1988, Berkes and Folke 1994, Ellis 2000, Adger 2003, Smit and Wandel 2006). Social capital is defined as the wider social community upon which one can draw by virtue of belonging to the community (Ellis 2000, Furstenberg 2005). The development of social capital has economic advantages, as goods and resources can be pooled and shared between group members (Furstenberg 2005). For example, food sharing is a common use of

19 social capital to overcome environmental stress in less-developed societies (Paulson 1993,

Collings et al 1998, Gurven et al 2001). Additionally, the development of social capital can promote less economically defined practices, such as the sharing of knowledge (Coleman 1988) and engaging in cooperative action (Adger 2003). In rural indigenous communities, social capital, cooperative action, the use of indigenous ecological knowledge may be more important that monetary wealth in providing adaptive capacity (Smith and Wandel 2006). Many climate change adaptation strategies focus on working with the social capital among community members, and also on building social capital among different communities and outside organizations.

Another social attribute of adaptive capacity is cultural capital (IPCC 2007). Cultural capital is defined as non-financial social assets that promote social mobility and are embedded within social relations and social values (Bourdieu 1986, Velásquez Runk et al 2007). Cultural values such as respect for individual autonomy and for traditional livelihoods have informed

Wounaan livelihood decisions in the context of landscape changes in n Panama (Velásquez Runk et al 2007). General farming skills and family working values enabled Oklahoma farmers to find work in California in response to the Oklahoma crop failures of the 1930s (McLeman and Smit

2006). Although social attributes such as cultural capital bolster community members’ adaptive capacities, many adaptation researchers and practitioners do not focus on these attributes because they are difficult to measure and to improve through policy.

Adaptive capacity is a positive and useful component of climate change adaptation, but also has several challenges. One issue with adaptive capacity is that technological, economic, and social attributes are often considered in isolation from one another and relationships among these variables are poorly understood (Eakin et al 2014). A main concern for climate change

20 adaptation is that economic growth and increased market participation may be eroding social networks and other social attributes of adaptive capacity (Sutherland et al 2005, IPCC 2007).

While some research suggests that higher levels of market participation are associated with reduced social capital in the context of adaptive capacity (Lauer 2014), other research did not find an association between higher levels of market participation and resource-sharing in the context of adaptive capacity (Paulson 1993). A better understanding of the relationships among economic and social attributes of adaptive capacity will improve the design and implementation of climate change adaptation strategies.

Another issue with adaptive capacity is that it is difficult to identify social attributes because they are embedded within local social institutions (Adger 2003, Smit and Wandel 2006,

Nelson et al 2007, Eakin et al 2014). Empirical studies have demonstrated that components such as governance, financial wealth, natural resources, social capital, cultural capital, and education enhance household and community resilience, but the importance of each of these components depends on the local social context (Smit and Wandel 2006, Eakin et al 2014). There is no model that enables researchers to identify the relevant attributes of resilience for each specific context (Smit and Wandel 2006). Some researchers have used participatory methods and the knowledge of community members to define social attributes of adaptive capacity (Smit and

Wandel 2006). For example, Marschke and Berkes (2006) used community-perceived notions of well-being in order to better conceptualize the relationships amongst livelihoods, resource levels, and other community components of resilience. In another recent article, Lauer (2014) used

Solomon Islanders’ perspectives on responses to a recent tsunami to better understand the social conditions that influenced their vulnerability. The terms in which local community members experience and respond to climatic and other disturbances illuminate the social institutions that

21 enable adaptation (Marshall and Marshall 2007). Therefore, in order to identify social attributes of adaptive capacity, one must analyze the social institutions that produce adaptive capacity in the local context.

It is useful to consider household and community adaptive capacity when developing climate change adaptation strategies, and it is also useful when framing research on climate change adaptation. Research that focuses on understanding adaptive capacity in local contexts contributes to both the vulnerability and resilience frameworks; adaptive capacity reduces the susceptibility of households and communities to harm and provides community members with the flexibility to favorably respond to climate disturbances (Nelson et al 2007, IPCC 2007, Engle

2011). Because adaptive capacity, particularly its social attributes, relies on social context, researchers have used perceptions of community members as a means of understanding the mechanisms of adaptation at the local level (Marschke and Berkes 2006, Marshall and Marshall

2007, Lauer 2014). Using perceptions of adaptive capacity can also help to uncover the influence of social institutions and social values on the mobilization of resources in response to climate disturbances.

1.4 Adaptation and Adaptive Capacity in the Pacific Islands Region

A case study in the Pacific Island region, or Oceania, will give insights into the interactions among attributes of adaptive capacity. Pacific Island communities stand to be among the first and most adversely affected by the impacts of global climate change (Barnett

2001, Pelling and Uitto 2001, IPCC 2007, Lazrus 2012). According to many scholars, most

Pacific Islands have limited financial and natural resources for buffering climatic disturbances

(Pelling and Uitto 2001, IPCC 2007). The lessons learned from adaptation research on Pacific

Islands are not only important, but also can be applied to many of the island systems in the region. Pacific Islands have a range of cultural diversity, but also share a common origin rooted in common adaptive strategies (Kirch 1984). Pacific Islands also share patterns in their adaptive capacities, particularly social attributes (Pelling and Uitto 2001). The outcomes from researching adaptive capacity in one island context can therefore be applied to discussions on adaptation options in other Pacific Islands, as well as other small-island and less developed communities.

Climate change presents many challenges for Pacific Island communities. Pacific Islands will experience sea-level rise, warmer sea temperatures, and new El Niño Southern Oscillation

(ENSO)-related weather patterns (Barnett 2001, IPCC 2007, World Bank 2010). Pacific Islands have relatively high shoreline-to-land-area ratios, and therefore even small levels of sea-level rise will have high impacts in terms of reduced land-areas (Pelling and Uitto 2001). Low-lying islands such as Kiribati and Tuvalu have already experienced land loss and face complete inundation (Barnett 2001, Pelling and Uitto 2001, IPCC 2007). The changes in ENSO are expected to cause both an increase in the intensity of cyclones and an increase in the frequency of droughts (Barnett 2001, Samoa Meteorological Division, 2011). Past experience demonstrates that climatic disturbances can cause widespread damage on Pacific Islands. The 1997-98 El Niño caused drought and famine on several islands, including $65 million USD in agricultural losses in Fiji (Barnett 2001). In the last few decades, cyclones have caused significant damage to infrastructure in Guam, Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, and other Pacific Islands (Barnett 2001). Because of their relatively small GDPs and national economies, most Pacific Islands are limited in their capacity to improve infrastructure and adapt to climate change (Barnett 2001, NUS 2006, IPCC 2007). Researchers and practitioners are

23 therefore working to develop suitable climate change adaptation strategies at the regional, national, and community levels.

At the community level, climate change will cause stress on Pacific Island adaptive strategies, which have many similarities because of their shared common origins. The common ancestors of Pacific Island people were horticulturists and fishermen that colonized the

Melanesian islands around 10,000 years ago (Rappaport 1999). As Pacific Island settlers expanded throughout Oceania, spreading to the Polynesian islands to the east and the

Micronesian islands to north and northeast, they introduced new, produced landscapes to the formerly uninhabited islands (Kirch 1984). The sea voyagers brought their staple crops, such as taro and breadfruit, and animal food sources, such as chickens, pigs, with them as they expanded throughout the Pacific (Kirch 1984). As a result, most Pacific Islands have common “transported landscapes” and food production strategies, such as dryland taro production (Leach & Ward,

1981, Hunt & Kirch, 1982; Kirch, 1984; Butler, 1988; Allen, 1992; Kirch, 1997). Currently, horticultural and fishing-based subsistence strategies still dominate Pacific Island economies, especially in rural villages (Barrau 1956, Crocombe 1994, Schoeffel 1994). A common origin accounts for similarities in contemporary food production systems and associated social institutions.

Because of their common origin and associations with similar adaptive strategies, there are several similar social institutions throughout Pacific Island communities. For example, kinship groups play large roles in the social and political organization of Pacific Island communities. Linguistic evidence suggests that Proto-Polynesians were organized into descent groups that held claims to land (Goldman 1955, Kirch and Green 2001). The fundamental kinship-based social systems provided the structural role for the evolution of Oceanic social

24 systems as they grew from small founding populations into larger political systems (Kirch 1984,

Kirch 2000). Kinship and family relations continue to be prominent in many aspects of Pacific

Island economies, politics, values and customs today (Firth 1936, Crocombe 1994, Knapman

1994, Brewis 1995, Evans 2001, Vaʻa 2006). Kinship groups hold customary land tenure in many contemporary Pacific Island nations (Firth 1936, Crocombe 1994). In addition to living near kin, most Pacific Islanders politic, work, and worship with kin, and kin-based relations form much of Pacific Islanders’ identities (Rapaport 1999). Although there have been many rapid changes in the Pacific Islands during the last century, kinship remains a dominant feature in most

Pacific Island societies.

Another common feature in Pacific Island communities is a focus on exchange-based relationships. There are myriad examples of trade, both intra-island and inter-island resource exchange, in archaeological and ethnographic records (Malinowski 1922, Mead 1969, [1930],

Firth 1936, Sahlins 1958, Rappaport 1967, Green 1982, Shore 1982, Kirch 1984, Kirch 2000,

Green 2001). These accounts and others demonstrate that resource exchange, reciprocity, and redistribution have been fundamental components of Pacific Island economies and relations.

Even in some of the more market-integrated Pacific Island communities, resource exchange continues to play a large role in Pacific Island culture and relations today (Fairburn 1985,

O’Meara 1990, Evans 2001, Munn 2002, Addo 2002,). Resource exchanges are used for ceremonial purposes (O’Meara 1990, Evans 2001, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009), and— particularly in the form of remittances among kin members—also as sources of livelihoods

(Fairburn 1985, Knapman 1994). It is often suggested that resource exchange and obligations for reciprocity are so prominent in Pacific Island societies that they disincentivize individuals from succeeding in the market economy (Fairburn 1985). Resource exchange networks may have

25 changed in the last century in many Pacific Island communities (Chapman 1990, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009), but most Pacific Islanders value exchanging resources with family and other community members.

Just as kinship and resource exchange networks play a large role in most Pacific

Islanders’ lived experiences, they also play a large role in their adaptive capacities. Pacific

Island communities have historically been able to adapt to environmental change, and social capital has played a large role in Pacific Island community members’ adaptive capacities

(Campbell 1990, Barnett 2001,, Pelling and Uitto 2005, IPCC 2007). Food and resource exchange networks between family and other community members have enabled Pacific

Islanders to buffer recent climatic and other environmental disturbances (Paulson 1993, Pelling and Uitto 2005, Sutherland et al 2005, IPCC 2007, Lauer 2014). Pacific Island community members also receive remittances from kin members to help buffer climatic disturbances

(Sutherland et al 2005, Lauer 2014). Kinship networks also help Pacific Islanders to migrate in response to climatic disturbances (Campbell 1990, Barnett 2001). If Tuvaluan people lose their low-lying islands to sea-level rise, they will migrate to live with their relatives already in New

Zealand and other countries (Lazrus 2012). Kinship networks and social capital form the lens through which Pacific Islanders perceive climatic disturbances, and form the means through which they adapt to them.

Increased market participation may be eroding social institutions that have promoted the development of social capital in the Pacific Islands. There are many documented cases of increased individualism associated with higher levels of market participation in Pacific Island communities (O’Meara 1987, Campbell 1990, Crocombe 1994, Ward and Kingdon 1995, Small

1997, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009, Lauer 2014). For example, many Pacific Islanders

26 have been privatizing formerly communal or customary lands in order to better profit from agricultural production (O’Meara 1987, Crocombe 1994, Ward and Kingdon 1995). Likewise,

Pacific Islanders are sharing less of their financial assets with kin and other community members

(Paulson 1993, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009, Lauer 2014). The changes associated with increased market participation may be affecting the adaptive capacity of Pacific Islanders.

It is generally assumed that higher levels of market participation will reduce the adaptive capacities of Pacific Island communities. There are documented cases that demonstrate that the social change associated with market integration and higher levels of market participation influenced the responses of Pacific Islanders to climatic disturbances (Campbell 1990, Paulson

1993, Lauer 2014). Rural community members in Vanuatu now rely more on government food aid after cyclones than on traditional exchange networks with members of other villages

(Campbell 1990). After recent cyclones in Samoa, unemployed community members exchanged and shared food from their farms with their neighbors, but community members who earned wages purchased food from local stores (Paulson 1993). However, research has not focused on the interactions between variables of adaptive capacity in Pacific Island communities, and the effects of increased market participation on social capital and other social attributes of adaptive capacity are poorly understood. A case study on the interactions among financial and social attributes of adaptive capacity in Samoa will help to provide insight into the resilience of Pacific

Islanders and other less-developed communities to climate change.

1.5 Structure of the Dissertation

The body of the dissertation is composed of four chapters, each representing a step in determining the influence levels of market participation on adaptive capacity in Samoa. Chapter

2 contextualizes the case study with background information on the research site and with a summary of the research methods. In order to be able to evaluate variables of market participation and adaptive capacity in the local context, I used the perspectives of community members to develop the variables. Chapters 3-5 are analyses of the data produced from this case study.

In, Chapter 3, I compare the variables of adaptive capacity that I developed using this process to variables used to measure adaptive capacity in other research projects. Researchers and practitioners have been analyzing adaptive capacity in communities in order to develop effective climate change adaptation strategies (Grootaert and Bastelaer 2001, Nelson et al 2007b,

Ayers and Forsyth 2009, Defiesta and Rapera 2014, Murphy et al 2015). Most of these researchers use standard questionnaires (Grootaert and Bastelaer 2001) or community participation (Ayers & Forsyth, 2009) to evaluate adaptive capacity at the community level.

Both of these methods measure and evaluate household and community assets as proxies for adaptive capacity. Researchers use standardized questionnaires to measure the adaptive capacities of households and communities, but assets measured are often not socially contextual.

Researchers use participatory methods to understand technological and economic attributes of adaptive capacity in the local context, but these methods do not produce variables that can measure adaptive capacity and do not address social attributes of adaptive capacity. The variables produced in Chapter 3 are able to measure social attributes of adaptive capacity in rural

Samoa. They also measure households’ abilities to mobilize assets during climatic disturbances rather than measuring households’ assets. Chapter 3 demonstrates that the methods from this case study can be used to expand the options for climate change adaptive strategies at the community level.

In Chapter 4, I use a statistical analysis of the variables produced in Chapter 3 in order to determine the effects of higher levels of market participation on community-perceived adaptive capacity in rural Samoa. Multiple regression analyses in this chapter failed to demonstrate an association between levels of household market participation and measurements of family-based social capital in Falealupo village. These results suggest that higher levels of market participation are not associated with reduced social capital in the context of adaptive capacity in rural Samoa. The chapter then suggests that the interactions between attributes of adaptive capacity are socially contextual by briefly illustrating the role that particular social institutions, in this case informal adoptions, played in mediating between levels of household market participation and family-based social capital in Falealupo.

In Chapter 5, I analyze kinship and resource exchange in Samoa in order to determine the broader influence of market participation on social capital in the context of adaptive capacity in

Samoa. Interpretive analyses of interviews and observations in Samoa suggest that market participation has enabled Samoans in Apia and overseas to give more to their immediate family members and rural relatives. Market participation has therefore strengthened adaptive capacity in the sense that rural community members have better access to cash and other resources that enable adaptation. However, market participation is also associated with a reduced sphere of social capital in the context of adaptive capacity, since Samoans are less likely to give and share money with their extended kin members than with their immediate family members. Higher levels of market participation are therefore expected to affect social attributes of adaptive capacity at the community level, but these changes do not imply reduced resilience to climate change.

In Chapter 6 I present the conclusions from the dissertation research. I use the results presented in the previous chapters to determine the effects of higher levels of market participation on community-perceived adaptive capacity and resilience in Samoa.

References

Addo, Ping Ann. 2009 Forms of Transnationalism, Forms of Tradition: Cloth and Cash as Ritual Exchange Valuables in the Tongan Diaspora. In Migration & Transnationalism: Pacific Perspectives. Helen Lee and Steve Tupai Francis, eds. pp 43-55. Canberra: ANU EPress. Adger, W. Neil. 2003 Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography 79(4): 387-404.

Adger, W. Neil 2006 Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16: 268-281.

Allen, Melinda S. 1992. Dynamic Landscapes and Human Subsistence: Archaeological Investigations on Aitutaki Island, Southern Cook Islands. Seattle: University of Washington

Aswani, Shankar 1999 Common Property of Sea-Tenure: A case study from Roviana and Vonava Lagoons, New Georgia, Solomon Islands. Human Ecology. 27 (3): 417-453. Aswani, Shankar 1997 Customary Sea Tenure and Artisanal Fishing in Roviana and Vonavona Lagoons: the Evolutionary Ecology of Marine Resource Utilization. PhD Dissertation.Department of Anthropology. Manoa: University of Hawaii.

Ayers, Jessica and Tim Forsyth 2009 Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 51(4): 22-31.

Bachofen, Anne T. Kuriakose; Livia Bizikova; Carina A. 2009 Assessing Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity to Climate Risks: Methods for Investigation at Local and National Levels. World Bank Social Development Department

Barrau, Jacques Barrau 1956 Polynesian and Micronesian subsistence agriculture

Barnett, J. 2001 Adapting to Climate Change in Pacific Island Countries: The Problem of Uncertainty. World Development 29(6): 977-993.

Bebbington, A 1990 Famer Knowledge, Institutional Resources, and Sustainable Agricultural Strategies: A Case Study from the Eastern Peruvian Slopes of the Andes. Bulletin of Latin American Research 9:203-28.

Berkes, Flikret 2007 Understanding Uncertainty and Reducing Vulnerability: Lessons from Resilience Thinking. Natural Hazards 41: 283-295.

Berkes, Filkret and Carl Folke 1994 Linking Social and Ecological Systems for Resilience and Sustainability. Beijer Discussion Papers no. 52: 1-16. Bohannan, P 1997 [1955] Some Principles of Exchange and Investment among the Tiv. In: Perspectives on Africa. R.R. Grinker and C.B. Steiner, eds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Boserup, Ester 1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Bourdieu, Pierre 1986 The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. J. Richardson, ed. Pp 241-258. New York, Greenwood.

Brewis, A 1995 Lives on the line: women and ecology on a Pacific atoll. USA, Harcourt and Co.

Brooks, Nick, W. Neil Adger, and Mick Kelly 2005 The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change 15(2): 151-163.

Butler, BM 1988. Archeological Investigations on the North Coast of Rota, Mariana Islands. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. Campbell, J. 1990 Disasters and Development in a Historical Context: Tropical Cyclone Response in Banks Island, Northern Vanuatu. International Journal of Mass Emergencies 8(3): 401-424.

Coleman, James S 1988 Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American Journal of Sociology. Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociology and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structures 94: S95-S120.

Collings, Peter, George Wenzel and Richard G. Condon 1998 Modern Food Sharing Networks and Community Integration in the Central Canadian Arctic. Arctic 51(4): 301-314.

Crocombe, Ron 1994 Trends and Issues in Pacific Land Issues In Land Issues in the Pacific. Ron Crocombe and Malama Meleisea, eds. pp, 1-18. Chistchurch, New Zealand: Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies.

De Soto, Hernando 1996 The Missing Ingredient: What Poor Countries Need in Order to Make their Markets Work. In The Privatization Process: A Worldwide Perspective. Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill, eds. pp, 19-24. Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Defiesta, Gay and Corazon L. Repera 2014 Measuring Adaptive Capacity of Farmers to Climate Change and Variability: Application of a Composite Index to an Agricultural Community in the Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management 17(2): 48-62. Dumaru, Patrina 2010 Community-based Adaptation: Enhancing Community Adaptive Capacity in Druadrua Island, Fiji. WIREs Climate Change 1: 751:763.

Eakin, Hallie 2006 Weathering Risks in Rural Mexico: Climatic, Institutional, and Economic Change. Tucson, University or Arizona Press.

Eakin, H. C., M.C. Lemos, and D.R. Nelson 2014. Differentiating capacities as a means to sustainable climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change 27: 1-8.

Ellis, F. 2000 A framework for livelihood analysis. Chapter 2. In Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Pp: 28-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Engle, Nathan L. 2011 Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change 21:647-656.

Evans, Mike 2001 Persistence of the Gift: Tongan Tradition in Transnational Context. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Fairburn, Te‘o 1985 Island Economies: Studies from the Pacific. Suva, Fiji: University of South Pacific.

Firth, Raymond. 1936 We, the Tikopia: A Sociological Study of Kinship in Primitive Polynesia. Stanford: University of California Press.

Folke, Carl 2006 Resilience: The Emergence of a perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses. Global Environmental Change 16: 253-267.

Forde, James D., Tristian Pierce, Frank Duerden, Chris Furgal, and Barry Smit 2010 Climate Change Policy responses for Canada’s Inuit Population: the importance of and opportunities for adaptation. Global Environmental Change 20: 177-191. Furstenberg, Frank F 2005 Banking of Families: How Families Generate and Distribute Social Capital. Journal of Marriage and Family 67: 809-821.

Geertz, Clifford 1963 Agricultural Involution: The Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Godoy, Ricard A., Michael Gurven, Elizabeth Byron, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, James Keough, Vincent Vadez, David Wilkie, William R. Leonard, Lilian Apaza, Tomas Huanca,and Eddy Perez 2004 Do Markets Worsen Economic Inequalities? Kuznets in the Bush. Human Ecology 32(3): 339-364.

Green, R. C. 1982 Models for the Lapita cultural Complex: and evaluation of some current Proposals. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology. 4:7-20. Grootaert, Christian and Thierry van Bastelaer 2001 Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations from the Social Capital Initiative. Washington, DR: The World Bank

Gunderson, Lance H and CS Holling, 2002 Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gurven, Michael 2002 Economic Games Among the Amazonian Tsimane: Exploring the Roles of Market Access, Costs of Giving, and Cooperation on Pro-Social Game Behavior. Experimental Economics 7: 5-24.

Gurven, Michael, Wesley Allen-Arave, Kim Hill, and A. Magdelena Hurtado 2001 Reservation Food Sharing Among the Ache of Paraguay. Human Nature: An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective 12(4): 273-297.

Holling, CS 1973 Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1-23.

IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) 2007 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch

IPCC 2014 Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.

Kirch, Patrick Vinton 1984 The Evolution of Polynesian Chiefdoms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kirch, Patrick V 2007 Hawaii as a Model System of Human Ecodynamics. American Anthropologist 109(1): 8- 29.

Kirch, Patrick V. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: an archaeological history of the Pacific Islands before European contact. Berkeley: University of California Press

Kottak, C. 1999 The New Ecological Anthropology. In Ecologies for Tomorrow: Reading Rappaport Today. Special Issue of American Anthropologist 101(1): 23-35.

Knapman, B. 1994 Economic development and dependency. In Tides of history: The Pacific Islands in the twentieth century, K.R. Howe, R.C. Kiste, and B.V. Lal , eds. Pp. 325-349. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Lauer, Matt 2014 Calamity, kastom, and modernity: local interpretations of vulnerability in the western Pacific. Environmental Hazards 13(4): 281-297.

Leach, Foss and Greame Ward. 1981. Archaeology on Kapingamarangi Atoll.

Lemos, Maria Carmen, Hallie Eakin, Don Nelson, and Nate Engle 2013 Building Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Less Developed Countries. In Climate Science for Serving Society. Ghassem R. Asrar and James W. Hurrel, eds. Pps: 437-459. New York and London: Springer Science.

Lesorogol, Carolyn K. 2003 Transforming Institutions Among Pastoralists: Inequality and Land Privatization. American Anthropologist 105 (3): 531-542.

Lindstrom, Lamont 1999 Social Relations. In The Pacific Islands: Environment and Society. Moshe Rapaport, (ed)1999 Honolulu, HI: Bess Press.

Lockwood, Brian 1971 The Samoan Village Economy. Oxford University Press. Macpherson, Cluny and Laʻavasa Macpherson 2009 The Warm Winds of Change: Globalization in contemporary Samoa. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922 Introduction: The Subject, Method and Scope of the Enquiry," "The Essentials of Kula," and "The Meaning of Kula." In Argonauts of the Western Pacific, 1-26, 81-104, 509-518. Long Grove: Waveland Press Inc.

Marschke, M. J., and F. Berkes 2006 Exploring strategies that build livelihood resilience: a case from Cambodia. Ecology and Society 11(1):16.

Marshall, Nadine A. and Paul A. Marshall 2007 Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Social Resilience within Commercial Fisheries in Northern Australia. Ecology and Society: 12 (1):1.

McCarthy, James J., Osvaldo F. Canziani, Neil A. Leary, David J. Dokken, and Kasey S. White, eds. 2001 Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mead, Margaret. 1969 [1930] Social Organization of Manu'a. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

McLaughlin, P. and T. Dietz. 2008 Structure, agency and environment: To-ward an integrated perspective on vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 18 (1): 99-111.

McLeman, R. and B. Smit 2006 Migration as Adaptation to Climate Change. Climate Change: 1-22. DOI:10.1007/s1058- 0054-9000-7.

Moran, Emilio F. 2010 Environmental Social Science: Human-Environmental Interactions and Sustainability. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell

Munn, Nancy 2002 Money Walks, People Talk: Systemic and Transactional Dimensions of Palauan Exchange L'Homme 162(1): 49-80.

Murphy, Daniel J., Carina Wyborn, Laurie Yung, and Daniel R. Williams 2015 Key Concepts and Methods in Social Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-328. Fort Collins, CO: Department of Agriculture Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Nelson, Donald R. and Timothy J. Finan 2009 Praying for Drought: Persistent vulnerability and the politics of patronage in Ceara, Brazil. American Anthropologist. 111(3): 302-316. Nelson, Donald R., W. Neil Adger, and Katrina Brown 2007 Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 32: 395-419.

Nelson, Rohan, Peter R. Brown, Toni Darbas, Phil Kokic, and Karen Cody 2007b The Potential to Map the Adaptive Capacity of Australian Land Managers for NRM Policy using ABS Data. National Land & Water Resources Audit. Canberra, AUS: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

Netting, Robert McC 1993 Smallholders, Householders: farm families and the ecology of intensive, sustainable agriculture. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Netting, Robert McC 1990 Links and Boundaries: Reconsidering the Alpine Village as Ecosystem. In The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to Practice, ed. Moran.

NUS (National University of Samoa) 2006 Samoa National Human Development Report. Apia, Samoa: Centre for Samoan Studies.

O’Brien, Karen, Robin Leichenkob, Ulka Kelkarc, Henry Venemad,, Heather Tompkins, Guro Aandahla, Akram Javedc, Suruchi Bhadwalc,, and Lynn Nygaarda Stephan Bargd, Jennifer West 2004 Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global Environmental Change 14:303-313.

Oliver Smith, Anthony 2004 Theorizing Vulnerability in a Globalized World: A Political Ecological Perspective. In Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development, and People. Greg Bankoff, George Frerks, and Dorthea Hilhorst, eds. Pps 10-24. London: Earthscan.

O’Meara, J Tim 1990 Samoan planters: tradition and economic development in Polynesia. Fort Worth, Texas: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Osbahr, Henry, Chasca Twyman, W. Niel Adger and David SG Thomas 2008 Effect Livelihood Adaptation to Climate Change Disturbance: Scale Dimensions of Practice in Mozambique. Geoforum 39:1951:1964.

Paulson, Deborah D. 1993 Hurricane Hazard in Western Samoa. Geographical Review 83 (1): 43-53.

Pelling, Mark and Chris High 2005 Understanding Adaptation: What can Social Capital Offer Assessments of Adaptive Capacity? Global Environmental Change 15: 308-319. Pelling, M. and J. I. Uitto 2001 Small Island Developing States: Natural Disaster Vulnerability and Global Change. Environmental Hazards 3: 49-62.

Pettengell, Catherine and PG Oxfram 2010 Climate Change Adaptation: Enabling people living in poverty to adapt. Oxfram International Research Report.

Pitt, David 1970 Tradition and economic progress in Samoa a case study of the role of traditional social institutions in economic development. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

Putnam, Robert D. 1993 Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rapaport, Moshe (ed) 1999 The Pacific Islands: Environment and Society

Rappaport, Roy A. 1967 Pigs for Ancestors. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Redman C.L. 1999 Human Impact on Ancient Environments. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Sahlins, Marshall 1958 Social Stratification in Polynesia. U. Washington Press

Sahlins, Marshall 1963 Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief: Political types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparitive Studies in Society and History. 5(3): 285-303.

Samoa Meteorological Division 2011 Pacific Climate Change Science Program: Current and Future Climate of Samoa. Apia, Samoa: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

Schoeffel, Penelope 1994 Where Are All the Farmers? Agriculture, Land Tenure and Development in the Pacific Islands. In Land Issues in the Pacific. Ron Crocombe and Malama Meleisea, eds.pp: 35-43. Chistchurch, New Zealand: Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies.

Scott, James C. 1976 The Moral Economy of the Peasant. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Shankman, Paul 1993 The Samoan Exodus. In Contemporary Pacific Societies: Studies in Development and Change. Victoria S. Lockwood, Thomas G. Harding and Ben J. Wallace, eds. Pp 156-170. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Shore, Bradd 1982 Sala‘ilua, a Samoan mystery. New York: Columbia University Press.

Small, Cathy A. 1997 Voyages: From Tongan Villages to American Suburbs. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Smit, Barry and Johanna Wandel 2006 Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16: 282- 292.

Steward, Julian 1976[1955] Theory of Culture Change: the Methodology of Multilinear Evolution: Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Swanson, Darren, Jim Hiley, Henry David Vanema, and Richard Groshans 2007 Indicators of Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change for Agriculture in the Prairie Region of Canada: An analysis based on Statistics Canada’s Census of Agriculture. International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Thompkins, Emma L. and W. Neil Adger 2005 Defining Response Capacity to Enhance Climate Change Policy. Environmental Science and Policy 8: 562-571.

Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X., Luers, A., Martello, M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A.,Schiller, A. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100 (14): 8074-8079.

USAID 2013 Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP): Year Two Work Plan. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K1SW.pdf

Velásquez Runk, Julie, GervacioOrtízNegría, Wilio Quintero Garcío, and CristobalinoQuirózIsmare 2007 Political Economic History, Culture, and Wounaan Livelihood Diversity in Eastern Panama. Agriculture and Human Values 24:93-106.

Wallerstein, Immanuel 1974 The Modern World-System; Capitalistic Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

Ward, Gerard R. and Elizabeth Kingdon 1995 Land Use and Tenure: Some Comparisons. In Land, Custom and Practice in the South Pacific. Gerard R. Ward and Elizabeth Kingdon, eds. Pp: 6-36. Cambridge University Press.

Wolf, ER 1957 Closed Corporate Communities in MesoAmerica and Central Java. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13(1): 1-18.

Wolf, Eric R. 1966 Peasants. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

World Bank 2010 Economics of Adapting to Climate Change: Samoa. New York: The World Bank Group. Yohe, G and RSJ Tol 2002 Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 12:25-40.

CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH SITE AND METHODS

2.1 Historical Context of Samoa

In this dissertation, I use Samoa as a case study for understanding effects of higher levels of market participation on community-perceived adaptive capacity. Samoa (Figure 2.1 and

Figure 2.2) has a history and cultural landscape similar to most other Polynesian islands, and also faces many of the same challenges regarding climate change and globalization. On the human development index, Samoa has recently advanced from the status of a least-developed country to a middle income level country, which is the same level of development as eight of the fourteen other independent Pacific Island nations (NUS 2006). In the rural communities of Samoa and other Pacific Islands, agricultural production has remained relatively low and remittances from kin members are the top source of income (Shankman 1976, NUS 2006, Shuai 2007). In the following subsection I explain the historical context of Samoa, focusing on pre-European

Samoan social system and adaptive capacity. I then explain changes associated with market participation in Samoa. Although the context of Samoa is unique, it is similar to that of other

Pacific Islands and areas that are not fully market integrated.

The pre-European social system of Samoa was based on horticultural production and focused on kinship and other resource exchange networks. Pre-European Samoans lived in distinct, autonomous villages that were found along the coasts of the two main islands, ʻUpolu and Savaiʻi (Jennings and Holmer 1980, Kallen 1982, Meleisea 1987, Hunt and Kirch 1997).

The core political, economic and social units of each village were the residential extended

40 families, or ʻaiga, which consisted of a category of people related by descent, marriage, and adoption (Kallen 1982). Each village had between 10 and 30 resident ʻaiga (depending on the village). Even though they lived in different households, all members of the ʻaiga had tenure and cultivation rights to its communally held land (Kallen 1982). Chiefs, or matai, were the heads of each ʻaiga, and the matai system contained both elective and ascriptive elements (Pitt

1970, Kallen 1982, Shore 1982). Matai were elected based on their service, or tautua, which consisted of contributing labor, food and other resources, to the family (Shore 1982). Each villages had several groups and institutions, such as the matai council and women’s committee, that bridged its ‘aiga, but the ʻaiga formed the formed the fundamental economic, political, and social unit of Samoan society.

Many of the pre-European social institutions in Samoa promoted resource exchanges within the ʻaiga and with other community members. Reciprocity and resource exchange was part of the daily experience for members of each ʻaiga. ‘Aiga members in each village worked together on their communal land and pooled their food and other resources (Kallen 1982,

O’Meara 1990). The matai, who was elected based on his or her contributions to the ‘aiga, was in charge of redistributing the assets to the other members of ʻaiga (Kallen 1982). There were specific social institutions that also promoted reciprocity and among different ‘aiga of a village and of other villages. Ceremonial faʻalavelave were formal events during which ʻaiga exchanged large amounts of gifts (Shore 1982, O’Meara 1990). Ceremonial faʻalavelave celebrated major life events such as weddings, funerals, and the bestowal of chief titles, and each guest ʻaiga exchanged fine mats and food with the host ‘aiga (Shore 1982, O’Meara 1990).

During a malaga, one or more ‘aiga of one village would spend an extended amount of time in a host village (Vaʻa 2006). During a malaga, the host village would feed and entertain their

41 guests, with the expectation that the favor would be returned in the future (Shore 1982, Vaʻa

2006). In addition to formal resource exchanges, informal resource exchanges were also very common among Samoans (Kallen 1982, MacPherson and MacPherson 2009). Redistribution and reciprocity, both within and outside of the ʻaiga and with other community members, formed major components of the pre-European economy and social experience.

The adaptive capacities of pre-European Samoans were based on their crops and their social capitals. The subsistence crops of pre-European Samoa were taro, which accounted for

70% of production yams, and breadfruit (Watters 1958, Pitt 1970, Paulson 1993). Taro and yams, which are both root crops, are much less vulnerable to cyclones and heavy storms than other crops (Pitt 1970, Paulson 1993). Cyclone Ofa caused little damage to taro, yams, and other root crops in 1990, but it devastated Samoa’s coconuts, breadfruit, bananas and other plant crops

(Paulson 1993). Pre-European Samoans also relied on their social networks in order to respond to climatic disturbances. Food gifts among ʻaiga and other community members helped to buffer food shortages after cyclones (Paulson 1993). The institutions of the malaga was particularly important because it enabled ‘aiga members of a village that had been harmed by cyclone or drought to spend an extended amount of time in a village with more food and other resources (Vaʻa 2006). These crops and social institutions, which had co-evolved with the local environment, enabled Samoans to respond and adapt to climatic disturbances for millennia before the arrival of Europeans and the cash economy.

Interactions with Europeans produced demand for cash and imported resources in

Samoan villages, but the demand for European goods grew slowly until economic opportunities for Samoans greatly increased in the middle of the 20th century. From the late 18th century through the 19th century, there was a limited supply of European goods, and limited means of

42 acquiring those goods. Most Europeans in Samoa during this time period were whalers, traders, and missionaries (Meleisea et al. 1987, Vaʻa 2006). They introduced several useful resources that were not available in Samoa and other Pacific Islands (Pitt 1970). Iron axes, for example, were much more efficient for clearing forests for taro production that Samoan stone tools (Pitt 1970).

Samoans made several changes to their daily activities in order to access these goods. For example, many Samoans converted to Christianity in order to order to be access resources such as iron and soap from missionaries (Pitt 1970, Vaʻa 2006). Samoans also produced surpluses of taro and other subsistence crops for trade with European sailors (Pitt 1970). Yet Europeans presence in Samoa was limited throughout the 19th century, and therefore there was little demand or opportunity for other forms of European wealth.

In the 20th century, the demand for European resources increased during German occupation of Samoa starting in 1899. Germany’s interest in Samoa was to use land to produce

European cash crops such as sugar, copra (coconut oil), cocoa, and banana (Pitt 1970). Wanting to reduce interactions with native Samoans, the Germans imported laborers from China and some

Melanesian islands to work in the plantations (Meleisea et al. 1987). Samoans sold 60% of the land suitable for cultivation in northwest ʻUpolu, the area outside the administrative capital Apia, to the Germans (Meleisea et al. 1987). Samoans, especially those living near the roads and

German plantations, also started to produce cash crops (Pitt 1970, Meleisea et al. 1987). The

German administration required all matai to grow copra as a form of taxes, and many Samoans grew and sold copra and cocoa to the Germans (Pitt 1970, Meleisea et. al 1987). However,

European demand for these crops started to decline rapidly before WWI, and then trade plummeted soon after New Zealand took control of Samoa from Germany (Meleisea et al. 1987).

Although trade and the opportunity to earn cash and other forms of imported wealth had

43 temporarily declined, the Samoan demand for imported goods had increased over the first half of the century. It was therefore necessary for many Samoans to develop new strategies for earning

European wealth.

Starting in the mid-20th century, opportunities for work overseas spurred mass migration from Samoa. The first of these opportunities started in American Samoa, the set of Samoan islands that became politically separate from the islands of German Samoa, or Samoa, in 1899.

The primary interest of the United States in American Samoa was to use the deep harbor of Pago

Pago as a naval base. The U.S. Navy offered many job opportunities to ethnic Samoans, and many migrated to Pago Pago for work (Vaʻa 2005). Naval positions in American Samoa then opened doors for employment in Hawaiʻi and California, but these positioned mostly benefitted those that were born in American Samoa.

Employment opportunities in New Zealand initiated a mass migration from Samoa starting in the 1950s. The mass migration from Samoa may have been spurred by concerns about the stability in an independent Samoa; emigration boomed in 1955 and again in 1961, the year before independence from New Zealand (Vaʻa 2005). The population of Samoans living in

New Zealand grew from 1,300 people in 1954 to 6,400 people in 1961, and then to 33,700 people by 1991 (Vaʻa 2005). There are currently more ethnic Samoans living in New Zealand,

Australia and the United States that in Samoa. Samoa has 190,000 citizens, and it is estimated that 200,000 Samoans, half of whom were born in Samoa, are living overseas (Shuai 2007).

Samoans have benefitted financially from their relatives living abroad. Remittances form the main source of the Samoan economy and is the top source of income for many Samoans (Shuai

2007). Shankman (1976) suggests that the remittance-based economy has hindered economic growth and increased production in rural Samoan villages. Although rural Samoans are not

44 producing agriculture to their potential, most contemporary rural Samoan household do earn money both via remittances and agricultural sales in local markets.

Higher levels of market participation, through agricultural sales and migration, has produced change in Samoa and its social institutions. One change has been increased production of plant crops. Prior to the 18th century, Samoans produced mostly taro, yams, and other root- crops; the arrival of Europeans introduced a need to grow plant crops. (Watters 1958, Pitt 1970,

Paulson 1993). Samoans first produced copra as a means of funding their village churches (Pitt

1970). Samoans then payed their taxes to the colonial German government in copra (Meleisea et al. 1987). Then, as German plantations created a market for copra, banana, and cocoa, and

Samoans were able to grow and sell these crops for cash (Meleisea et al. 1987). The European market demand for these plant crops declined after the first war, but Samoans continued to produce them (Pitt 1970, Paulson 1993, 1997). Most contemporary Samoan households produce coconut, cocoa, and banana for home consumption and for selling in local markets (Paulson

1993). Although Samoans enjoy these plant crops, they are much less resilient to cyclones and other climatic disturbances than traditional root crops (Pitt 1970, Paulson 1993). Yet increased urbanization in Apia has created domestic market demand for root crops, and many therefore many rural households produce them in surplus (Pitt 1970, Paulson 1997). The increased production of plant crops has therefore had little impact on the adaptive capacities of rural households.

Higher levels of market participation in Samoa is also associated with reduced redistribution of resources among ‘aiga members. In pre-European Samoa, ‘aiga members worked collectively on their communal land and pooled and redistributed their resources (Kallen

1982). Even during much of the 20th century, ʻaiga members pooled their earned incomes,

45 including money received from remittances (Kallen 1982, O’Meara 1990). Samoans continue to pool and redistribute resources with their ‘aiga members, but only in special circumstances such as ceremonial faʻalavelave (OʻMeara 1990, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). Samoans keep the rest of their own earned income and spend it as they please (Pitt 1970, O’Meara 1990,

MacPherson and Macpherson 2009). Since earned incomes have become increasingly important to Samoans, ʻaiga members have likewise stopped working collectively on communal lands

(O’Meara 1987). Individual households informally privatize sections of their ʻaiga land, and keep the profits from income earned through production (O’Meara 1987). Changes in social institutions such as these diminish the strengths of kinship and other social networks.

Higher levels of market participation in Samoa are also associated a decentralization of the ʻaiga. Instead of living together on customary land in the rural village, most ‘aiga members are now living in different locations throughout the world. More than half of the 190,000 people living in Samoa live in urban Apia and its peri-urban villages, for Apia holds 74% (20,717 people) of all Samoa’s employers, employees, and self-employed. (Samoa Bureau of Statistics

2011). There is therefore much less interaction among ‘aiga members today than in previous times. The decentralization of the ‘aiga also reduces to strength of connection between ʻaiga members. Matai, who often live outside the village, have less power and authority over ‘aiga members, and therefore less ability to help maintain cohesion within the ‘aiga (Macpherson and

Macpherson 2009). Also, migrants’ connections to their ‘aiga in Samoa diminishes as their connections to their ‘aiga and other community members in their new country strengthens

(Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). Higher levels of market participation and the associated globalization of the Samoan ‘aiga have therefore impacted and reduced the strengths of the core political, economic, and social unit of the traditional Samoan social system.

Although there have been significant changes in the Samoan social system because of increased market participation, many Samoans value many aspects of their traditional way of life, or fa’aSamoa. Many elements of the village and chief structure remain prominent in

Samoan society. Villages have maintained a degree of autonomy, and the council of elected matai governs each village (Vaʻa 2006). The large majority of villages are under customary title, meaning they cannot be sold to outsiders, and therefore rural ʻaiga members live together in their respective villages (O’Meara 1990, Schoeffel 1994, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). The matai, whom are still elected based on their service to the ‘aiga, still have power prestige in

Samoa. Matai hold the titles for the customary lands of their ʻaiga, and only matai can hold 47 of the 49 seats of Samoa’s parliament. ʻAiga members have become more dispersed over the last century, but the ‘aiga continues to play a major role in political, economic, and social dimensions of contemporary Samoa.

Resource exchange also remain common in Samoa. ‘Aiga and other community members frequently share food with others and lend money to others (O’Meara 1990, Paulson

1993, Sutherland et al. 2005). Overseas Samoans often continue to support their rural relatives with financial assistance (Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). The ceremonial faʻalavelave, during which ‘aiga exchange food, gifts, and money help to maintain economic and social ties among different ‘aiga and, as many overseas Samoans return to the villages of their ‘aiga in order to participate in these events, also within each ‘aiga, (Macpherson and Macpherson 2009).

Globalization and higher levels of market participation have influenced Samoan social institutions, but in at least some cases the differences have enabled Samoans to use new ways to fulfil the functions of their traditional institutions.

2.2 Contemporary Samoa and Falealupo

Samoa is a nation comprised of two main volcanic islands, ʻUpolu and Savaiʻi, and eight small islets. Apia, the capital and commercial center of Samoan, is on northern ʻUpolu, and

ʻUpolu is the island with the largest population (Samoa Bureau of Statistics 2011). Apia and northwest ‘Upolu are also the most developed areas of the island in terms of population density, earned income levels, and education levels (Samoa Bureau Statistics 2011). Most households in the rest of Samoa have mixed subsistence economies, both producing food for consumption and earning some money. Salelologa, in eastern Savaiʻi, is the only commercial area in Savaiʻi with a few grocery stores, hardware stores, clothing stores, and banks. Salelologa has the wharf from where people travel from Savaiʻi to ‘Upolu on daily ferries that take 1-2 hours. Both ʻUpolu and

Savaiʻi have a paved road circumnavigating the island, and ʻUpolu also has a few paved roads running across the islands. Almost all villages on both islands are on the coastal roads. Only three of the eight small islets are inhabited, and with very small populations. There no ferries linking them to the main islands, and no paved roads or vehicles on the islets.

Samoa is a growing economy, but its growth has depended heavily on help from outside sources. There is very little industry in Samoa and agricultural production is mostly used for home consumption and the domestic market (Paulson 1993, Schoeffel 1994, Vaʻa 2005).

Remittances, aid, tourism and bureaucracy form the largest sectors of the Samoan economy

(Shuai 2007). Remittances alone accounts for 23% of Samoa’s GDP (Shuai 2007). Samoa has received considerable financial assistance from the United Nations Development Program and other agencies. Until 2014, Samoa was considered a Least Developed Country, and the Samoan

Government, the UNDP, and other international institutions worked together to reach

Millennium Development Goals (NUS 2006). These goals included improving infrastructure,

48 health, education, empowerment and access to wealth (NUS 2006). Currently, in terms of leading long and health lives, being educated, and having access to the resources necessary for a decent standard of living, Samoa ranks 106 out of 187 nations, which is in the middle-third of all nations (UNDP 2006). Despite having a small national economy, most Samoans have high food security. Where hardship exists, it is a function of lack of access to services and opportunities rather that to means of survival (Shuaib 2007). Most development programs therefore focus in developing more opportunities for Samoans, and for building resilience to environmental hazards and climate change.

Like other Pacific Island and developing nations, climate change presents many challenges for Samoa. Climate change models predict that by 2030, Samoa’s average air temperature will have increased by 0.4-1.0°C, and also the number of number of hot days and nights will have increased (Samoa Meteorological Division 2011). Models also suggest that the dry seasons in Samoa will get drier while the wet seasons will get wetter. There will likewise more days with extreme rainfall, and more days without rainfall (World Bank 2010, Samoa

Meteorological Division 2011). Some models predict that the frequency of cyclones will decrease (Samoa Meteorological Division 2011), and others predict the frequency will increase

(World Bank 2010). Although experts disagree on the frequency of cyclones in the future, most agree that the intensity of those cyclones will increase (World Bank 2010, Samoa Meteorological

Division 2011). Climate change therefore presents increased weather variability and increased intensities of climatic disturbances.

These climate change models produce great concern because recent climatic disturbances, especially cyclones, have had large-scale impacts on the Samoan people and their economy. In the last three decades, four large cyclones have caused immense damage and

49 significant loses. In 2012 alone Cyclone Evan caused over $103.3 million in damages across all physical and social sectors and $100 million in loses across agricultural, fishery, and other production sectors (Government of Samoa 2013). Other potential impacts are linked to changes in the weather patterns associated with El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events (World

Bank 2010). Therefore, organizations such as USAID (2013), South Pacific Region

Environmental Programme (SPREP 2013), GEF (2002), and the World Bank (2010) are invested into helping Samoan’s adapt to climate change (Saifaleupolu 2005). There has been success with climate change adaptation programs at the national and regional levels, but adaptation practitioners have struggled to implement programs at the community level in Samoa (USAID

2013). A case study in Falealupo village will give insight on strategies that will enhance adaptive capacity in rural Samoan villages.

Falealupo is a rural village on the western tip of Savaiʻi, and is the furthest village from

Apia (Figure 2.2). Most people in Falealupo take one of the daily buses when traveling to

Savaiʻi’s wharf in Salelologa, and a bus ride across the island takes about three hours. The village was split into three main sections: Falealupo-tai, the flat coastal section with 28 households, Avata, the middle section with 48 households, and Falealupo-uta, the inland section with 58 households (Figure 2.3). For this research, a household, or habitation household, was defined as the unit of people that were currently living together and sharing household responsibilities. According to my household surveys, the population of Falealupo was just under one thousand people comprising 134 households. The inland section, Falealupo-uta, is approximately 5km from the coast, is approximately 600m in elevation, and most its households are built along or near the island’s main road. Most of the households of the other two sections have been built along or near the unfinished auxiliary road that runs from the main road to the

50 coast; the coastal section of the road through Falealupo-tai is unpaved and runs southwest to

Tufutafoe, the neighboring village.

All households in Falealupo were members of one of its eight ‘aiga. Each ʻaiga comprised of an average of 17 resident households. According to a sample of 125 households in

Falealupo (demographic data was incomplete for the other nine households), the average household size was 6.29 people per household (standard deviation=2.91), and half of the habitation households (N=63) were simple nuclear households with two parents and their children. Almost all households in Falealupo had mixed-subsistence economies, both earning money and producing much of their own food. Most household residents earned money by selling agricultural products such as taro, bananas, kava, and cocoa, in local and foreign markets.

A few people earned money by working in other peoples’ household farms, which are commonly called plantations, and some people owned small stores and other small businesses in the village.

Falealupo is in a relatively arid region of Samoa, and the people of Falealupo experiencing frequent droughts. The interior mountains shield Falealupo and the rest of northwest Savaiʻi from receiving much rainfall (Burgess 1983, Samoa Meteorological Division

2011). From 1950-1980, Falealupo received and average annual rainfall of 2091mm, which is significantly than the country’s average rainfall of 3000-3,5000m (Burgess 1983). In comparison, northern Savaiʻi received and average of 3,679 mm of rainfall a year, and Apia received an average of 2,963 mm received in Apia (Burgess 1973). Rainfall in Falealupo is also seasonal; approximately 75% of annual rainfall is received between the months of October and

March (Burgess 1983). The remaining months are relatively dry with little rainfall.

During the dry months between April and September, there are frequent droughts in

Falealupo and northwest Savaiʻi (Samoa Meteorological Division 2011). These droughts have

51 serious impacts on the peoples’ access to fresh water and subsistence-based livelihoods, which rely heavily on taro and other rain-fed agriculture. Community members remember particularly severe droughts, such as one during 2011 and another in 1983. During droughts, community members have used water from one of a few brackish springs near the coast. In recent years, community members, often with financial assistance from Red Cross and other donor agencies, have been building water catchment systems that can store enough fresh water for households to last the dry months.

The village has also experienced destructive cyclones. Cyclone Val and Cyclone Ofa in the early 1990s destroyed most of the households and plantations in Falealupo. Almost all people that were had been living on the coast moved inland to Falealupo-uta after Cyclone Ofa, but many people have since returned to Falealupo-tai. Falealupo experienced one cyclone,

Cyclone Evan on December 2012, which was during the research period. Cyclone Evan was considered to be the worst tropical cyclone to affect Samoa since Cyclone Val in 1991. Yet most of the damage was suffered in Apia and other villages on ʻUpolu. Falealupo was relatively unaffected by Cyclone Evan, suffering minimal damage.

Figure 2.1: Maps of Oceania. Samoa (13.833 S, 171.75 W), which has been circled on the map, is in the South Pacific Ocean close to the island nations of Tonga, Niue, and Fiji. The map of Oceania displays the larger island groups in the region; many of the smaller island groups, such as American Samoa, are not labeled. The map was accessed online at: http://www.etriptips.com/wiki/Oceania.

Figure 2.1: Map of Samoa. Falealupo village is on the western tip of the island Savai’i. The dotted lines are the districts of Samoa. The yellow line circumnavigating the two main islands are the paved roads, and the green areas are the national parks, forest reserves, and conservation areas. Source: Google Maps.

Figure 2.2: Map of Falealupo, Samoa. The red lines have been drawn from the coast to the main road, and indicate the proximate borders of the village. Most people in Falealupo live in Falealupo-uta, the section of the village surrounding the main road. Avata, is the middle section of the village, between Falealupo-uta and Falealupo-tai on the coast. I lived in Falealupo-tai, and it would take about two hours to walk uphill to the main road. Source: Google Maps.

Figure 2.3: Picture of Falealupo-tai. Youth in Falealupo play volleyball or rugby near the coastal road almost every afternoon. Houses, or fale, are in the background. Most people’s taro farms were inland in Avata or Falealupo-uta.

2.3 Research Methods

I carried out research in two phases from August 2012-August 2013. Phase One was an exploratory phase, during which I used interviews to understand adaptive capacity in the local context. I analyzed the interviews and observational data in the field, and used the results to develop variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity. During Phase 2, I used a structured questionnaire to measure the variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity in each of the 134 households in Falealupo.

I also interviewed residents about their livelihoods, their values, and other aspects of their lives.

From these interviews, discussions, and other observations, I derived variables used to measure levels of household participation in the market and household social capital. During Phase Two, the Systematic Phase, I systematically collected data on the variables measuring household market participation and household social capital using a household questionnaire. I also used the questionnaire to ask habitation household members about their responses to recent cyclones and droughts, and about their perceived ability to buffer future climatic disturbances.

Phase One lasted for 9 months, from August 2012 through April 2013. Since I was using the data from Phase One to develop an understanding of adaptive capacity in the local context, it was not necessary for me to use systematic sampling methods to select informants for the interviews. I started with 24 unstructured interviews with residents living in Falealupo based on their availability. A field assistant from Falealupo helped me to translate during interviews with

Samoan language speakers. We started the interviews by discussing recent droughts or cyclones.

I allowed the residents to describe their experiences with the disturbances. We asked them how they were able to respond, and how others in the village were able to respond. The unstructured interviews were recorded and transcribed by professional translators in Apia. I analyzed the text from the interviews by looking for themes on adaptation that were repeatedly being discussed by the residents.

After developing an understanding of some of the attributes of adaptive capacity being discussed by residents, I develop semi-structured questionnaires to collect more information on these attributes. I used several different questionnaires on topics including responses to recent droughts, responses to recent cyclones, family social networks, household livelihoods, strategies for earning money, reasons for spending money, concerns for future climatic disturbances, and

56 ceremonial faʻalavelave. The data was both quantitative and qualitative, depending on the question. My field assistant and I conducted 90 different semi-structured interviews residents in

Falealupo. Although several of the interviews were unstructured, I also used semi-structured questionnaires to interview informants about different topic. Additionally, I had unstructured interviews with seven people living in Apia in order to better understand relations within the

‘aiga, the matai system, and exchange networks between Apia and rural village. I conducted these interviews in English, and transcribed them myself. I also used several other unstructured interviews in Falealupo to help clear up any additional questions or topics.

During this time I experienced Cyclone Evan, and I participated in two ceremonial faʻalavelave and several household activities. I took notes about these experiences, and then asked community-members about them later. I also took additional observational data on the spatial organization of the village, household assets, and population changes in the village, interactions between people of different habitation households, livelihoods, and daily household activities. All observational data was recorded in a notebook. I analyzed the data from the semi-structured interviews, the unstructured interviews, and my notebook by looking for patterns in the data. I used the results in order to develop a questionnaire that would measure community-perceived variables of adaptive capacity at the household level.

Phase 2 lasted for three mains, from June-August 2013. During this Phase, three resident field assistants and I used the questionnaire to measure household demographics and the variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity in each of the households. In order to measure the variables, a field assistant would ask household member each of the questions and record the response. The questionnaire also contained some semi-structured questions on responses to recent droughts and cyclones, and perceived ability to respond to future

57 disturbances. I analyzed the Phase Two data using a combination of inferential statistics and interpretive analyses. I analyzed the quantitative data on household levels of market participation and household social capital using SPSS to test multiple regression models (See

Chapter 4). I also interpreted the descriptive statics and responses to semi-structured questions by interpreting the patterns in the data (See Chapters 3-5). The combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses enabled me comprehensively understand and evaluate the relationship between economic growth and social capital in the context of adaptive capacity and resilience in

Samoa. In the following chapters, I use the results to answer different research questions on the effects of higher levels of market participation on community-perceived adaptive capacity in

Samoa.

References

Burgess, Stuart M. 1983 The Climate and Weather of Western Samoa. Wellington: New Zealand Meteorological Service.

GEF (Global Environmental Facility) 2002 Operational Guidelines for Expedited Funding for the Preparation of National Adaptation Programs of Action by Least Developed Countries. Available at: https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/C.19.Inf_.7%20NAPA.pdf

Government of Samoa 2013 Post Disaster Needs Assessment Cyclone Evan 2012. Apia, Samoa: Government of Samoa. Available at: http://www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr/files/SAMOA_PDNA_Cyclone_Evan_2012.pdf.).

Hunt, Terry .L and Patrick.V. Kirch. 1997. The Historical Ecology of Ofu Island, American Samoa, 3000 BP to the Present. In. Kirch, P.V and T.L. Hunt eds. Historic Ecology in the Pacific Island pp. 105-123. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jennings, JD and RN Holmer 1980. Archaeological excavations in Western Samoa. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

Kallen, Evelyn 1982 The Western Samoan Kinship Bridge: The Study of Migration, Social Change, and the New Ethnicity. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Publishers Macpherson, Cluny and Laʻavasa Macpherson 2009 The Warm Winds of Change: Globalization in contemporary Samoa. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Meleisea, Malama, Penelope Schoeffel Meleisea, Utufua Naseri, Konesane Leatio‘o, Gatoloai Peseta Sio, Tavita Fitisemanu, I‘iga Suafole, Tanuvase Tavale, Isale Va‘ai, Sofara Aveau, Salale Salale, and Guafa Sione 1987 Old Samoa. In Legaga: A Short History of Western Samoa. Malama Meleisea and Penelope Schoeffel Meleisea eds. pp: 24-40. University of the South Pacific. Suva, Fiji.

NUS (National University of Samoa) 2006 Samoa National Human Development Report. Apia, Samoa: Centre for Samoan Studies.

O’Meara, J Tim 1990 Samoan planters: tradition and economic development in Polynesia. Fort Worth, Texas: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

O’Meara, J Tim 1987 Samoa: customary individualism. In Land Tenure in the Pacific. Ron Crocombe, ed. Suva, Fiji: University of South Pacific Press.

Paulson, Deborah D. and Steve Rogers 1997 Maintaining Subsistence Security in Western Samoa. Geoforum 28 (2): 173-187

Paulson, Deborah D. 1993 Hurricane Hazard in Western Samoa. Geographical Review 83 (1): 43-53.

Pitt, David 1970 Tradition and economic progress in Samoa a case study of the role of traditional social institutions in economic development. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

NUS (National University of Samoa) 2006 Samoa National Human Development Report. Apia, Samoa: Centre for Samoan Studies.

Saifaleupolu, Teleiai Safa 2005 Climate Change: Challenges for Samoa. Proceeding of the 1999 National Environment Forum. Pp18-28. Apia, Samoa: The Government of Samoa, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

Samoa Bureau of Statistics 2011 Population and Housing Statistics 2011. Apia, Samoa: Government of Samoa.

Samoa Meteorological Division 2011 Pacific Climate Change Science Program: Current and Future Climate of Samoa. Apia, Samoa: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

Shore, Bradd 1982 Sala‘ilua, a Samoan mystery. New York: Columbia University Press.

Shuaib, Fikreth 2007 Leveraging Remittances with Microfinance: Samoa Country Report. Brisbane, Australia: Foundation for Development Cooperation.

Sutherland, Karen, Barry Smit, Violet Wulf and Taito Nakalevu 2005 Vulnerability to Climate Change and Adaptive Capacity in Samoa: the case of Saoluafata village. Tiempo 54. 11-15.

SPREP (South Pacific Regional Environmental Program) 2013 Adapting to Climate Change in the Pacific: the PACC programme. Apia, Samoa: SPREP and UNDP.

USAID 2013 Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP): Year Two Work Plan. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K1SW.pdf Va‘a, Unasa F. 2006 The Fa‘asamoa. In Sāmoa National Human Development Report 2006: Sustainable Livelihoods in a Changing Sāmoa. Asofou So‘o, ed. pp. 8-17. Apia, Samoa: National University of Sāmoa.

Vaʻa, Unasa 2005 Searching for the Good Life: Samoan International Migration. In Department of Anthropology Colloquium.

Watters, RF 1958 Cultivation in Old Samoa. Economic Geography 34(4): 338-351.

World Bank 2010 Economics of Adapting to Climate Change: Samoa. New York: The World Bank Group.

CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPING COMMUNITY-PERCIEVED VARIABLES OF ADAPTIVE CAPACITY IN

SAMOA1

1 Vickers, J. B. To be submitted to Society and Anthropology.

Abstract

Community-perceived variables of adaptive capacity improve our understanding of local resilience to climatic disturbances and provide more options for climate change adaptation strategies. Many mixed-subsistence communities are prone to climate-related hazards, and these hazards are expected to become more frequent because of climate change (IPCC 2007, World

Bank 2010). Researchers and practitioners evaluate a community’s adaptive capacity, or characteristics that enable community members to respond to and buffer climatic disturbances, in order to identify suitable climate change adaptation strategies for the community (Grootaert and

Bastelaer 2001, IPCC 2007, Murphy et al. 2015). Most of the methods used to measure adaptive capacity in the local context evaluate assets that reduce the vulnerabilities of community members to climatic disturbances. In this study, I produce variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity based on the experiences of community members with recent climatic disturbances. Variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity provide insight into the adaptability of households in mixed-subsistence communities, and their ability to adjust and mobilize resources in response to current and anticipated climatic disturbances.

3.1 Introduction

Climate change models predict that many living in less-developed nations and communities will experience increased climatic disturbances. In the Pacific Ocean region, warmer sea temperatures affect the El Niño Southern Oscillation, or ENSO (IPCC 2007, World

Bank 2010). The changes in ENSO are expected to cause an increase in both the intensity of cyclones and the frequency of droughts (Barnett 2001, Samoa Meteorological Division 2011).

Recent experiences have demonstrated that climatic disturbances can cause great damage in this region, particularly in less-developed communities where people produce food for consumption.

The 1997-98 El Niño caused drought and famine on several islands, including $65 million USD

63 in agricultural losses in Fiji (Barnett 2001). In 2012, Cyclone Evan caused over $103.3 million in damages across all physical and social sectors in Samoa, and $100 million in losses across agricultural, fishery, and other production sectors (Government of Samoa 2013). It will be difficult for many community members in the Pacific Islands and other nations with low levels of development to cope with increased climatic disturbances (Barnett, 2001, NUS 2006, IPCC

2007). Researchers and practitioners are therefore working to develop suitable climate change adaptation strategies in these communities.

Many practitioners evaluate households’ adaptive capacities in order to select and implement adaptation strategies that aim to build local resilience to climate change. Adaptive capacity is the set of economic, technological, and social attributes that enable community members to anticipate and respond favorably to climate and other disturbances (IPCC 2007,

Nelson et al. 2007). Attributes of adaptive capacity can reduce households’ vulnerabilities to climatic disturbances, and they can enhance households’ adaptabilities, or their capacities to make adaptive and transformative changes in response to disturbances (Engle 2011). Climate change adaptation practitioners generally focus on evaluating attributes that reduce household and community vulnerabilities to climatic disturbances (Nelson et al. 1007, Engle 2011).

Household questionnaires (Grootaert and Bastelaer 2001, Murphy et al. 2015) and participatory methods such as focus group discussions and community-mapping (Sutherland et al. 2005, Ayers and Forsyth 2009) help stakeholders to analyze characteristics that influence vulnerabilities climatic disturbances. It has been challenging for stakeholders to assess characteristics that promote household adaptability.

Improving the ability to evaluating social attributes of adaptive capacity will help stakeholders to evaluate household adaptability. Social attributes of adaptive capacity enable

64 community members to adjust their capacity to command resources in response to climatic disturbances (Sen 1981, Brooks and Adger 2005, IPCC 2007). For example, participating in traditional food-sharing networks enables mixed-subsistence community members to draw upon the resources of group members in response to climatic disturbances (Paulson 1993, Ford et al.

2006, IPCC 2007, Lauer 2014). However, social attributes are embedded in local social institutions and can be difficult to evaluate (Adger 2003, Pelling and High 2005, Smit and

Wandel 2006). Most standard questionnaires and participatory methods used in community- based adaptation, or CBA, projects focus primarily on evaluating economic and technological attributes that help communities to resist climatic disturbances (Ayers and Forsyth 2009, Dumaru

2010, Jansen et al. 2006). Questionnaires and CBA methods often measure livelihood diversity as a means of evaluating household adaptability, but the ability to also analyze social attributes of adaptive capacity will provide more complete understanding of household resilience. In this article, I demonstrate that variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity reveal social characteristics that promote household adaptability in response to climate change.

This article is structured into seven sections. In the second section, I summarize the background context of adaptive capacity, the two main categories of adaptive capacity, and the two main strategies used to measure adaptive capacity in households and communities. In the third section I explain the research site of Falealupo, Samoa. Then, I explain the deductive methods I used to develop contextual variables of adaptive capacity in Falealupo. Due to the deductive nature of the research methodology, the results from one phase of research helped to develop the methods for the next phase of research. Therefore, the fifth section of the article explains both the results of the research phase and an interpretation of those results. In the sixth section, I compare the research variables and the results from using these variables in Falealupo

65 to variables and results of other studies in household adaptive capacity. The final section presents the conclusions from this study.

3.2 Background on Adaptive Capacity

Adaptive capacity provides a valuable perspective for understanding climate change adaptation because it enables researchers, practitioners, and community members to locate and discuss factors that will bolster community resilience to climatic disturbances. There are two main sets of attributes within adaptive capacity: 1) technological and economic attributes, and 2) social attributes (IPCC 2007, Nelson et al. 2007). There are also two general approaches for assessing adaptive capacity at the community level: 1) standardized questionnaires, and 2) CBA participatory methods (Grootaert and Bastelaer 2001, Sutherland et al. 2005, Ayers and Forsyth

2009, Murphy et al. 2015). Both of these strategies provide valuable insight on adaptive capacity at the local level in terms of community and household assets that reduce vulnerabilities. Yet because they focus on physical assets and not social institutions, it is easier to assess and evaluate technological and economic attributes of adaptive capacity than social attributes.

The set of technological and economic attributes of adaptive capacity is more commonly assessed during climate change adaptation research. The current understanding of this set of attributes has mostly come out of vulnerability assessments, in which attributes reduce the sensitivity of a household or community to disturbances associated with climate change (IPCC

2007, Lemos et al. 2013, Eakin et al. 2014). Technological attributes of adaptive capacity are the physical assets that reduce vulnerability to drought, cyclones, and other climatic disturbances.

For example, larger farms with more crops are less vulnerable to droughts and other climatic disturbances (Defiesta and Rapera 2014). In the Pacific Islands, there has been a focus on

66 reducing the impacts of tsunamis, cyclones, and droughts by improving infrastructure and building sea-walls (Barnet 2001, Sutherland et al. 2004, World Bank 2010, USAID 2013,

Dumaru 2010). Improving technological attributes of adaptive capacity reduces the sensitivity of community members to climate change disturbances.

Economic indices of adaptive capacity include the earned incomes, financial assets, and livelihood diversities of households (Yohe and Tol 2001, Eakin 2006, Marshall and Marshall

2007, Lemos et al. 2013). Financial wealth, particularly in the form of cash, is considered a generic attribute of adaptive capacity because it is flexible, storable, universally accepted, and can easily be transferred into other goods and resources (De Soto 1996, Ellis 2000, IPCC 2007).

Cash and other financial assets provide individuals with the flexibility to respond to climatic disturbances, but investing into cash-earning, market-related livelihoods may also constrain individuals’ flexibility.

Livelihood diversity is an economic attribute that provides individuals with the capacity to respond to different climatic disturbances. Research demonstrates that individuals, particularly those that depend on agriculture and other climate-sensitive livelihoods that have the flexibility to use different livelihood strategies, are more resilient to climate variability (Ellis

2000, Eakin 2006, Osbahr et al. 2008). In northeast Brazil, it is critical that farmers have a diversity of climate-sensitive and non-climatic-sensitive activities to earn income (Nelson and

Finan 2009). In rural Mexico, farmers who are able to switch between subsistence-level food production and market-related livelihoods, such as wage-labor, are better able to cope with weather-related crisis (Eakin 2006). While it is important to those in less-developed communities to be able to earn cash in response to climatic disturbances, it is also important that they are able to diversify their income-earning and food-producing livelihood strategies.

The social attributes of adaptive capacity are less commonly assessed during climate change adaptation projects. One of the most commonly recognized social attributes of adaptive capacity is social capital (Adger 2003, Pelling and High 2005, IPCC 2007). Social capital is defined as the wider social community upon which one can draw by virtue of belonging to the community (Ellis 2000, Furstenberg 2005). Resource sharing among group members is a common example of social capital enabling group members to buffer climatic disturbances

(Paulson 1993, Adger 2003, Smit and Wandel 2006). Food sharing among family and other community members helped rural Solomon Islanders respond to a recent tsunami (Lauer 2015) and has helped Inuit respond to weather-related food shortages (Ford et al. 2006). Samoans shared food with their family and other community members after a cyclone destroyed their household crops in the early 1990s (Paulson 1993, Sutherland et al. 2005). In addition to resource sharing, social capital also promotes less economically defined practices among group members, such as sharing knowledge (Coleman 1988) and acting cooperatively (Adger 2003).

Social capital and other social attributes of adaptive capacity are particularly important in less- developed communities where people do not have stocks of cash and other financial assets

(Adger 2003). These social attributes enable community members to mobilize assets through their socially embedded networks in response to climatic disturbances.

Adaptive capacity gives researchers, practitioners, and community members a focal point for assessing community members’ resilience to climate disturbances. It enables stakeholders to focus on characteristics that enable community members to respond to climatic disturbances, and to develop strategies to ameliorate responses. Even though both sets of attributes of adaptive capacity are very important, most climate change adaptation strategies focus more on improving technological and economic attributes of adaptive capacity than on improving social attributes

(McCarthy et al. 2001, Pettengell and Oxfam 2002, World Bank 2010). Researchers focus on technological and economic attributes of adaptive capacity because they are physical assets, and therefore are easier to measure than social attributes. It is therefore necessary to develop new ways of assessing and evaluating social capital and other attributes that are embedded in the local social system.

3.3 Common Strategies for Assessing Adaptive Capacity

Standard questionnaires and CBA participatory methods are the two most commonly used strategies for measuring adaptive capacity in the local context. Both strategies are valuable for different reasons; standard questionnaires enable researchers to quickly measure generalizable attributes, including social attributes, throughout the community (Grootaert and

Bastelaer 2001, Murphy et al. 2015), and CBA methods enable practitioners and community members to discuss contextual attributes with face value. Both strategies to identify household economic and technological assets that reduce vulnerability to climate disturbances. These approaches are also limited in their capacity to evaluate social institutions and household adaptability.

Standard questionnaires enable experts to quickly measure variation in community using robust, generalizable indicators of adaptive capacity. The questionnaires are developed using a top-down approach, in which outside experts use pre-determined indices to measure adaptive capacity. Many researchers prefer questionnaires because they are outcome-oriented, cost- effective, robust, and reliable (Murphy et al. 2015). Researchers can use standard questionnaires provided by the World Bank (Grootaert and Bastelaer 2001), the International Institute for

Sustainable Development (Swanson et al. 2007), and other agencies who have developed their

69 own questionnaires. Researchers can then use the questionnaires to measure adaptive capacity in a large number of households throughout one or more communities (Grootaert and Bastelaer

2001, Nelson et al. 2007b, Cassidy and Barnes 2012, Defiesta and Rapera 2014, Murphy et al.

2015). Using questionnaires is valuable because it allows researchers to compare adaptive capacity within a community and between communities.

The main drawbacks of using standardized questionnaires to measure adaptive capacity are that they focus on assets. The standard questionnaires use proxies of adaptive capacity that can be easily measured in each household. Earned income and size of farm can be used to measure economic wealth and crop diversity, and sources of income can be used to measure livelihood diversity (Grootaert and Bastelaer 2001, Nelson et al. 2007b, Cassidy and Barnes

2012, Defiesta and Rapera 2014). It is difficult to use these questionnaires to measure social institutions that promote adaptability and the ability to command resources from outside the household. Government structures and social relations are embedded in the local social systems, and there are not robust models that can be used to measure these in different contexts (Smit and

Wandel 2006). Standard questionnaires are therefore limited to measuring household and community assets as proxies of adaptive capacity.

As an alternative to standard questionnaires, CBA projects use participatory approaches in order to understand adaptive capacity in the local context. CBA strategies empower local community members and enable them to be involved in decision-making processes (Ayers and

Forsyth 2001, Sutherland et al. 2005, Dumaru 2010, Murphy et al. 2015). To assess adaptive capacity in the local context, CBA practitioners first define adaptive capacity to the local community (Ayers and Forsyth 2001, Sutherland 2005, Dumaru 2010, Murphy et al. 2015). In the current Coastal Community Adaptation Plan, or C-CAP, on several Pacific Islands,

70 practitioners defined vulnerability using vignettes such as “a plantation with only one crop is vulnerable because the family is at risk of having no food” (USAID 2013). Community members then use local examples to translate the practitioners’ definitions of adaptive capacity into local context (Ayers and Forsyth 2001, Sutherland 2005, Dumaru 2010, Murphy et al.

2015). In the C-CAP projects, community members use community mapping to identify the infrastructure in their community that is vulnerable to climatic disturbances (USAID, 2013).

With a mutual understanding of adaptive capacity in the local context, the experts and community members then discuss adaptation options (Ayers and Forsyth 2001, Sutherland et al.

2005, Dumaru 2010). CBA is a collaborative process that enables researchers and community members to evaluate attributes of adaptive capacity that have local validity.

Although CBA approaches contextualize adaptive capacity, they focus on economic and technological attributes and do not measure variation in the community. Like the projects that use standard questionnaires, CBA is outcome-oriented, with the main purpose of reducing climate change vulnerability in less-developed communities (Dumaru 2010). Because of this orientation, most CBA initiatives focus on improving economic and technological assets (Ayers and Forsyth 2009, Dumaru 2010, USAID 2013). The priority of C-CAP is to improve local infrastructure and financial assets (USAID 2013). For example, the key outcome of a recent

CBA project in Fiji was the development of a more effective water pumping system (Dumaru

2010). By focusing on mostly on assets and not also on social institutions, CBA projects are limited in their potential adaptation strategies to those that ameliorate assets, and do not focus on improving community members’ ability to command resources during climatic disturbances.

The case study in Samoa demonstrates that community-perceived variables of adaptive capacity complement both the CBA participatory methods and the standard questionnaires because they

71 focus on social attributes and other means through which community members make changes and access resources from outside the household in response to climatic disturbances.

3.4 Research Site and Methods

Samoa is a small nation and most rural community members have limited financial resources. Until 2014, Samoa was a Least Developed Country (NUS 2006). Like other Pacific

Island nations, a large proportion of Samoa’s population lives in rural villages and produces most of its agriculture for household consumption (NUS 2006). Almost half of Samoa’s 190,000 residents live in rural villages outside of the capital, Apia, and its surrounding peri-urban villages

(Samoa Bureau of Statistics 2011). Most migrants have left their rural villages over the last fifty years in order to earn money in Apia or overseas (Shankman 1976, Barnett 2001, Shuaib 2007).

Although agricultural production is relatively high in rural Samoa, most agriculture is used for household consumption and most rural Samoans earn incomes from remittances (Shankman

1993, Shuaib 2007). Financial assets and commercial resources are therefore limited and not the dominant components of adaptive capacity in rural Samoa.

Recent research suggests that social capital is a major component of adaptive capacity in rural Samoa. Samoa has had many recent climatic disturbances, including four major cyclones in the last three decades and frequent droughts in the arid northwestern regions of its two main island, ʻUpolu and Savaiʻi (Samoa Meteorological Division 2011, Government of Samoa 2013).

Rural Samoans have responded to these disturbances by sharing resources and acting collaboratively with family and other community members (Paulson 1993, Sutherland et al.

2005). Traditional food-sharing networks enabled rural Samoans to buffer food shortages after cyclones Ofa and Val in the early 1990s (Paulson 1993, Sutherland et al. 2005). Community

72 networks, such as the young untitled men and other traditional village groups, helped to quickly rebuild houses, churches, roads and other infrastructures that were damaged by the cyclones

(Paulson 1993, Sutherland et al. 2005). Remittances from relatives also helped rural Samoans to buy food and rebuild their houses after the cyclones (Sutherland et al. 2005). Economic and technological attributes also enabled community members to respond to climatic disturbances, but social attributes played a major in their adaptive capacities.

Falealupo is a rural village on the western tip of the western-most island, Savaiʻi, and is the furthest village from Apia. The main social, political, and economic units of each Samoan village are the kinship groups, or ʻaiga (Kallen 1982, Shore 1982). Every ʻaiga is headed by an elected chief, or matai, who holds customary tenure in a village (Kallen 1982, Shore 1982).

Samoans use the word ‘aiga to refer to their extended kinship group, their immediate family members, and their nuclear family. For this article, a household refers to only those members living together in a single household, and ʻaiga refers to all in the extended kinship group. In order to reside in a village outside of Apia, which has private land, one must be a member one of the village’s resident ‘aiga. Falealupo had eight ʻaiga with customary rights in the village, and each ʻaiga comprised of an average of 17 resident households in Falealupo village. According to my household surveys, the population of Falealupo was just under one thousand people comprising 134 households. According to a sample of 125 households in Falealupo

(demographic data was incomplete for the other nine households), the average household size was 6.29 people per household (standard deviation=2.907) and half of the households (N=63) were simple nuclear households with two parents and their children.

Almost all households in Falealupo had mixed-subsistence economies, both earning money and producing much of their own food. Most household residents earned money by

73 selling agricultural products such as taro, bananas, kava, and cocoa in local and foreign markets.

A few people earned money by working in other peoples’ plantations, and some people owned small stores and other small businesses in the village. Most households in Falealupo had relatives that remitted money from Apia and overseas.

I collected data in Falealupo from August 2012-August 2013. Data were collected in three phases. The results from one phase enabled me to develop the methods for the next methods. The goal of the first phase of research was to develop an understanding of community- perceived attributes of adaptive capacity. In the second phase, I refined my understanding of these attributes and developed variables to measure them with variation in the community. In the third phase, I used a questionnaire to measure the variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity in each household in Falealupo. A field assistant, who was a resident of Falealupo, helped me to translate the interviews in Samoa, and professional translators in Apia transcribed and translated the interviews. The inductive process enabled me to produce variables with local validity.

During the first phase of research, I used interviews and observations of community members in Falealupo in order to develop an understanding of community-perceived adaptive capacity. First, I used unstructured interviews with members of twenty households in the coastal section of the village where I was living: ten interviews were on recent droughts and ten were on recent cyclones. During these interviews, I allowed the community members to describe their responses to the climatic disturbances in their own terms without first giving them a definition of adaptive capacity. I started these discussions by asking about specific events, such as Cyclone

Ofa in 1990 and a drought in 2011. I asked each of the informants to explain the climatic cyclone or drought to me. I asked what they did during the disturbance, what others did the

74 disturbance, and what they wish they had done. I analyzed the text from these interviews using frequency analyses of attributes that community-members perceived to have enabled adaptation.

In the second phase of research, I used semi-structured interviews to collected mixed sets of qualitative and quantitative data on three attributes of adaptive capacity with variation. In order to find out more about financial assets in the context of adaptive capacity, I asked community members about how they were able to get money to pay for their responses to climatic disturbances. I interviewed 134 households in the village with these questions. To find out more about livelihood diversity in the context of adaptive capacity, I asked community members about the livelihoods during climatic disturbances. Because there was more discussion involved with these questions, I interviewed 10 community members on these questions. In order to understand social capital in the context of adaptive capacity, I asked community members about their social networks during responses to climatic disturbances. I interviewed all

134 households in the village on these questions. I used informal and unstructured interviews with a few community members in order to clear up any uncertainties about the results. I then used the results to establish variables to develop contextual indices of adaptive capacity.

During the third phase of research, I developed the contextual variables and then used them to measure community-perceived adaptive capacity in Falealupo. I developed a variable to measure each of the attributes with variation in the community, which included three of the four attributes. I again used unstructured and informal interviews with a few community members to help clarify any questions on the variables. I verified the variables with three field assistants from Falealupo. The three research assistants then helped me to collect data from each of the

134 households in the village. I produced descriptive statistics for each of these variables. Each

75 of the community-perceived variables has local validity and involves social dimensions of adaptation.

3.5 Results from First Phase Interviews

The initial unstructured and semi-structured interviews with community members yielded a consensus on five attributes of community-perceived adaptive capacity: assets, social capital, livelihood diversity, communal resources, and government aid. Table 3.1 displays results from the frequency analyses. Results from these discussions also suggested potential variation in assets, social capital, and livelihood diversity the results from the first phase were used to develop semi-structured interviews for the second phase of research.

Economic and technological assets were community-perceived attributes of adaptive capacity. All twenty residents used money their taro farms in response to recent droughts and cyclones. Money was used to purchase food, water, and other resources in order to buffer shortages during or after the disturbance. Residents also bought water tanks and stronger houses in order to reduce their vulnerabilities to droughts and cyclones. Most of those interviewed claimed that water tanks enhanced their adaptive capacity to droughts, and a few claimed that water tanks enhanced their adaptive capacities to cyclones. 113 households in Falealupo claimed to own or have direct access to at least one water tank. The prototype cement water tank in Falealupo holds 10,000 liters of water; residents told me that the tank fills with enough water during the rainy season to last the dry season. If their water tanks are empty, they can pay a water company to have them filled. One resident told me that he has never had to worry about droughts since having a water tank.

Table 3.1: Frequencies of Attributes of Community-Perceived Adaptive Capacity.

Attributes of Community-Perceived Droughts Cyclones Percent of Adaptive Capacity N=10 N=10 Total, N=20 Economic and Technological Assets 10 10 100% Money 10 10 100% Taro Farm 7 7 70% Water Tanks 7 2 45% Strong House 2 2 20% Livelihood Diversity/Large Household 10 10 100% Sources of Food and Income 6 9 75% Sources of Income 2 6 40% Sources of food 2 4 30% Social Capital/Social Networks 10 10 100% Overseas Relatives (Remittances) 9 10 95% Land Tenure (relocating) 3 8 55% Relatives in Village 3 3 30% Neighbors in Village 3 0 15% Church (LDS) 1 0 5% Communal Resources 10 7 85% Communal Marine (selling fish) 9 7 80% Communal Forest (selling timber) 1 1 10% Communal Springs 10 0 50% Government Aid 4 2 30%

Some of the residents also explained that stronger houses improved their adaptive capacity. 1990, Cyclone Ofa destroyed almost all houses in Falealupo, which were mostly made of local forest timber. Residents told me that they have built houses of cement or store-bought timber because they are stronger than houses made of forest timber and are less likely to be damaged by cyclone winds. During the research period, 16% of the houses (22 houses) were made of cement, and another 48% of the houses (64 houses) were made from wood that had been purchased from the store. Only 35% of the houses (47 houses) were built from local forest

77 timber. During semi-structured interviews in later research phases, many residents claimed that they would build stronger houses if they had more money.

All residents interviewed used their taro farms in order to respond to climatic disturbances. Taro farms were used to both for subsistence and for earning cash. One of the first things residents did after Cyclones Ofa and Val was to replant their taro farms, which provided food after three to four months. In anticipation of increased frequency cyclones in the future, residents would expand their plantations in order to minimize the risks of food loss. Residents also expand their plantations in order to earn more money to pay for resources, such as water during droughts. All but two of the 134 households in Falealupo grew their own taro. Taro farming is a highly valued livelihood in Samoa; one resident told me, “A Samoan must have a taro farm.”

All residents also perceived livelihood diversity as an attribute of adaptive capacity.

Community members mostly described their livelihood diversity in terms of household members being able to participate in numerous livelihood activities. Livelihood activities included producing food in household farms, fishing, selling food in local markets, selling handicrafts, and earning money from a job or small local business. Households with low levels of livelihood diversity had limited capacity to change livelihood activities in response to climatic disturbances.

A man with young children and no taro farm fished and sold forest timber. He told me that

“When the sea is rough, there is no money. When it rains, I can’t do my work in the forest, where I can make timber and sell it to get money. That means, I would just stay home and sleep, and depend on God for the life to live.” Other residents told me that when they could not fish, they would work in their farms. A household that also earned money purchased food when neither fishing nor farming was productive.

Household livelihood was related to the number of adult members of a household. In most households, the young men did the farming and fishing, and the women wove mats and other handicrafts. Residents suggested that most men in Falealupo could both farm and fish, but some chose not to do both. In the example above, the man did not like farming, and there were no other adult males in his household that could farm. Households with more adults were more likely to have multiple livelihood activities, including wage labor. Livelihood diversity enabled households to respond to climate disturbances, and larger households with more adults were able to have higher levels of livelihood diversity.

All twenty residents perceived social capital as another attribute of adaptive capacity.

Residents described their social capital in terms of sharing resources and working collaboratively with others in different households. One resident told me, “We can have patience even if we don’t have money, no food, a Samoan can deal with it. We can get help by having a good and close relationship with others.” After Cyclone Ofa, many community members and their close relations worked together to rebuild their houses and replant their crops. Residents also shared food, water, and other resources with kin and other community members in response after cyclones and other disturbances. In addition to sharing resources with others in Falealupo, residents use remittances from their kin to respond to climatic disturbances. Residents with water tanks and cement houses told me that their overseas relatives covered the costs for those and other resources. Close relationships with others were very important to residents of

Falealupo, especially since these relationships enable community members to better respond to climatic disturbances.

Local communal resources were the fourth community-perceived attribute of adaptive capacity, but access to resources did not vary within the community. By Samoan custom, ʻaiga

79 cannot hold tenure over communal resources, which include fresh water springs, marine resources, and forest timber. All twenty residents used spring water during droughts, used local timber to quickly rebuild their houses after Cyclone Ofa, and used fish as food and sources of cash. Communal resources are an important source of adaptive capacity in Falealupo, but households do not vary in their access to these resources. I therefore did not explore natural resources in the second phase of research. I also did not explore the fifth attribute of community- perceived adaptive capacity, government aid. A few of the residents claimed that they received government aid during recent droughts and cyclones, but the aid was evenly distributed throughout the community. During the second phase, I used semi-structured interviews to refine my understanding of economic and technological assets, livelihood diversity, and social capital so that I could develop variables to measure each of these community-perceived attributes.

3.6 Results from Second Phase Semi-Structured Interviews

In the second phase, I used semi-structured interviews to better understand the parameters that could be used to measure each attribute. The semi-structured questions asked about each of the attributes, and then I used the results to develop variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity. I also used unstructured interviews with community-members to help understand and verify data.

In order to better understand the community-perceived attribute of economic and technological assets, I collected data using three questions on sources of household income.

First, I asked each household to list their top three sources of income; Table 3.2 demonstrates the results. Remittances formed a large proportion of income for the majority of households in

Falealupo. Half of the households reported that remittances were their top source of income, and

69% of the households reported that remittances were one of their top three sources of income.

Employment formed the next highest source of income (25% of households), followed by agriculture sales (17% of households). Household members do earn money in Falealupo, but large proportions of most households’ incomes are earned by others living in Apia and overseas.

Table 3.2: Sources of Household Incomes. The table displays the distribution of the top source of income for 132 households in Falealupo.

Income Source Top Second Third Total Source, Source, Source, Occurrences N=132 N=112 N=98 Remittances 66 13 13 92 Wages 33 31 13 77 Business 2 2 1 5 Agriculture Sales 23 36 41 100 Fish Sales 4 4 5 13 Handicraft Sales 2 4 12 18 Retirement Pension 1 22 6 29 Other 1 0 2 3

I used the next two questions on financial assets in order to understand how people access money in response to climatic disturbances. In one of these questions, I asked each household to explain how they earned the money for their water tank, and Table 3.3 displays the results. The majority of households paid for their water tanks using money received from remittances. The second most commonly used means of paying for water tanks was employment, followed by agricultural shares. In the other question, I asked households how they would earn $100 WST in one week, and Table 3.4 displays similar results. Of those that could access $100 WST, the majority would get the money from overseas relatives; most of the others would get the money

81 from work (13 households) or from agriculture sales (7 households). The results from these questions demonstrate that remittances are very important to residents in Falealupo during climatic disturbances.

Table 3.3: Funding Sources for Water Tanks. Each household that paid for its own water tank reported the source of funding for the water tank. The table does not include households that received funds from Red Cross or other donor agencies.

Income Source Occurrences, Percent of N=113 Total Remittances 88 78% Employment 15 13% Agriculture Sales 9 8% Handicraft Sales 1 1%

Table 3.4: Funding Source for $100 WST. The source from which each household claimed they would use to raise $100 WST within one week.

Source of Occurrences, Percent of Total $100 N=134 Capable, N=55 Incapable 79 x Remittances 29 53% from Family Employment 13 24% Selling Fish 1 2% Selling 7 13% Agriculture Sell 2 4% Handicrafts Other (Loan) 3 5%

In order to understand parameters of livelihood diversity, I used semi-structured interview questions on household size. I asked 10 people a series of questions about their ideal household size and the preferred livelihoods of their children. All interviewed residents told me they preferred to have at least 5-6 children so that some children could help with food production and others could earn money with wage labor. One resident explained, “I want one of them to stay to look after me, to work in the plantation, to help with the village, the church, and the family obligations. The rest should go to work.” The other residents had similar responses, stating that some children should stay in Falealupo and others should find employment in Apia or overseas. All adult children were expected to contribute to the household. The results therefore suggested that livelihood diversity depended on the number of adult children on the heads of household.

In order to understand the parameters for social capital, I used semi-structured questions on household resource-exchange networks. I first asked households with whom they have most recently shared food and money, and Table 3.5 displays the results. Half of the households claimed they shared food with their siblings living in different households (49% of sample of food-sharers). Others shared food with their parents (17%) or with extended kin members

(26%). For the question on sharing money, most households claimed they recently shared with their children or parents (62% of money-sharers). The results suggest that households form strong social networks living in Falealupo. Next, I asked each household from whom they have recently received remittances, and Table 3.4 displays the results. Almost all households received remittances from immediate family members; over half received remittances from their siblings

(51% of sample) and most of the others (40%) received remittances from their children. The

83 results suggested that households shared and received resources from their immediate family members in response to climatic disturbances

Table 3.5: Household Resource Exchange Networks. Each of the 134 households listed the non- household member to/from whom they gave/received resources within the last month. The immediate family members have been highlighted.

Relationship Food Money Remittances Spouse 0 0 1 Parents/Children 20 42 36 Siblings 50 2 46 Other 'Aiga 27 10 6 Pastor/Non-Relatives 6 13 0 Un-identified 0 1 2 None 31 63 40 Total 134 131 131

3.7 Results from Third Phase Structured Interviews

In the third phase, I used the results from other phases to develop variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity. I developed three variables: the market participation ratio variable, the livelihood diversity variable, and the local social networks variable. I then measured the variables in all of the households of Falealupo. The measurements of the variables are not used in this article, other than displaying the distributions of the variables in the community.

The first community-perceived variable of adaptive capacity, the market participation ratio variable, measured financial assets in terms of a household’s ability to access money in response to climatic disturbances. Results from other phases demonstrated that a household’s access to cash depended on both employment of household members and having immediate family members living in Apia and overseas. I therefore defined each unit of analysis as the

“economic household.” An economic household was defined as resident household members and all of their children, including co-residential children and children living in other habitat households. I included non-residential children in the economic household because results from interviews suggested that non-residential children were expected to contribute to their parents’ households. Siblings also contributed financial assistance, but community members suggested that siblings were less obligated to contribute to households than children.

After defining the economic household, I developed the market participation ratio variable. The ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of “market- participating adults” by the total number of adults in the economic household. A “market-participating adult,” or an adult with immediate access to cash, was an individual between the ages of 15 and 60 who was either in school, employed, or living in Apia or overseas. The minimum age for an adult was set at 15 because at that point a family chooses whether or not it will spend money to continue the individual’s education. An adult who was still in school was considered a “market-participating adult” because he or she was investing his/her time into learning skills for future employment rather than into producing food or helping with other rural habitation household activities.

A market-participating adult was also anyone who was employed full-time (at least 40 hours a week) or running a business full-time; part-time employees and part-time business owners were counted as one-half of a market-participating adult. Lastly, all adults of the economic household living in either Apia or overseas, regardless of school or employment status, counted as market-participating adults because they were at least trying to earn money in order to contribute to the economic household in Falealupo. A market participation ratio value of 1.00 indicates that all of the adults of the economic household fully participated in the market; a value of 0.00 indicates that none of the adults of the economic household were participating in the

85 market. Figure 3.1 illustrates the distribution of the market participation ratio for 125 of the 134 economic households in Falealupo. The demographic information was incomplete for nine of the

134 economic households.

15 Count 10

ofEconomic Households 5

0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Market Participation Ratio Variable

Figure 3.1: Distribution of the Market Participation Ratio Variable. The mean MPR of the sample of 125 economic households was 0.39 with a standard deviation of 0.254. Demographic information was incomplete for nine households.

The second variable of community-perceived adaptive capacity, the livelihood diversity variable, measured livelihood diversity in terms of the number of adults in the economic household. To measure the variable, household members reported the total number of adult household members and their non-residential adult children. Figure 3.2 displays the distribution of the livelihood diversity variable in 125 of the 134 households in Falealupo.

The third variable of community-perceived adaptive capacity, the local social networks variable, measured household social capital in terms of the size of the household’s local resource exchange network. Results from earlier research phases demonstrate that immediate family members form a household’s resource exchange networks. In order to measure this variable, each household reported the number of siblings of the heads of households who were living in other households in Falealupo. Because of the customary land tenure, households in which heads of household were both members of resident ‘aiga would have more siblings living in

Falealupo than households in which only one head of household was a member of a resident

ʻaiga. In order to account for the differences, I averaged the number of siblings in households in which heads of household were members of different resident ʻaiga. Figure 3.3 displays the distribution of the variable in 124 of the 134 households in Falealupo.

5 CountofEconomic Households

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Livelihood Diversity Variable

Figure 3.2: Distribution of the Livelihood Diversity Variable. The mean of the variable is 5.82 with a standard deviation of 3.45 for 125 economic households.

10 CountofHouseholds 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Local Social Networks Variable

Figure 3.3: Distribution of Local Social Networks Variable. The mean of the variable is 2.2 with a standard deviation of 1.53 for 125 households.

3.8 Discussion

Attributes of community-perceived adaptive capacity provide insight on household adaptability and flexibility. These variables can be used to strengthen resilience in mixed- subsistence communities throughout the world. In the following section, I compare the community-perceived variables that I developed in this article to those used to evaluate

Samoans’ adaptive capacity in other articles. By revealing that community-perceived variables of adaptive capacity compliment those used in other approaches, I demonstrate that using all of these variables of adaptive capacity together will help to reduce vulnerability and increase adaptability to climate change in other mixed-subsistence communities.

Recent climate change adaptation research in Samoa has focused on reducing community vulnerability to climatic disturbances. The majority of these projects have focused on improving coastal infrastructure and making it resistant to cyclones and other disturbances (Sutherland et al.

2005, Daly et al. 2010, World Bank 2010, USAID 2013, UNEP 2014, Fakhruddin et al. 2015).

Stakeholders have used CBA participatory methods, such as focus group discussions and community mapping, in order to discuss vulnerable infrastructure in local villages (Sutherland et al. 2005, Daly et al. 2010, USAID 2013, Fakhruddin et al. 2015). The projects that result from these CBA methods have improved roads, developed sea-walls, and reduced coastal erosion

(Sutherland et al. 2005). USAID 2013, Fakhruddin et al. 2014). These improvements strengthen the resilience of rural community members because their houses and livelihoods will be more resistant to climatic disturbances.

Projects in Samoa have also focused assessing household in context of climate change.

These projects have used household indicators, such as income and expenditures, health, education, and climate-sensitive livelihoods, in order to evaluate household social vulnerability

(Grasso et al. 2010). Household indicators of vulnerability have also included the physical assets of the house, such as its building materials (UNEP 2014, Grasso et al. 2014). The research on adaptive capacity in Samoa is useful because it will help to reduce the vulnerability of community members to cyclones and other climatic disturbances. This article compliments the past research because the variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity reveal characteristics that promote adaptability.

One contribution of community-perceived variables is that they provide insight on social attributes of adaptive capacity. The market participation ratio, the livelihood diversity variable, and the local social networks variable all measure adaptive capacity in terms of relationships among community members. I developed all three variables because community members uses these relationships with others in response to climatic disturbances. Each of the variables can also be used to measure variation within the community. Using the local social networks

89 variable reveals which households are less flexible to respond to climatic disturbances because they do not have immediate family members living in other households in the village. With the knowledge that local social capital enhances their adaptive capacity, community members can adjust and increase the size of their local, family-based social network. Community-perceived social attributes of adaptive capacity provide stakeholders with more opportunities to improve the social dimensions of local resilience to climate change.

Another contribution of community-perceived variables is that they enable stakeholders to measure a household’s ability to access resources from other households. The market participation ratio, the livelihood diversity variable, and the local social networks variable all measure adaptive capacity in terms of households’ resource exchange networks. These networks extend beyond the household, the local community, and even the nation. Households in

Falealupo rely heavily on remittances from family members living in Apia and overseas in order to respond favorably to climatic disturbances. If their networks did not extend beyond the community, most households in Falealupo would not have been able to build cement houses and water tanks. Household income and expenditures does measure a household’s access to financial assets. Out the twenty residents interviewed during the first phase of research, only two claimed that they regularly received remittances from their overseas children; the others claimed that they would call their overseas family when they needed money. Community-perceived variables enhance stakeholders’ provide insight on household resilience because they assess households’ ability to command resources and make changes in anticipation to climate change and other disturbances.

A third contribution of variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity is that they reveal the flexibility and adaptability of mixed-subsistence households. All twenty of the

90 residents interviewed about their experiences with recent climatic disturbances used at least three attributes of community-perceived adaptive capacity during their responses, and seventeen of the twenty resides used four attributes. These results reveal that mixed-subsistence households employ several different strategies in order to adapt to climatic disturbances. In the case of

Samoa, these strategies include accessing money through social networks, consuming and selling produce from their farms, sharing food and other resources with local family, and harvesting communal resources. It is critical to the resilience of mixed-subsistence households that they maintain the flexibility to produce food, participate in resource exchange networks, and participate in the market. Variables of community-perceived .adaptive capacity provide insight on strategies that will help to bolster adaptability in rural Samoa and in other mixed-subsistence communities.

Community-perceived variables of adaptive capacity help to illuminate the social dimensions of local resilience to climate change. There are projects throughout the world that aim to strengthen the resilience of mixed-subsistence community members to climate change.

Most of these projects use questionnaires or CBA participatory methods to help to reduce community-members vulnerabilities to climatic disturbances by ameliorating local economic and technological attributes of adaptive capacity (Ayers and Forsyth 2001, Sutherland et al. 2005,

Sietchiping 2008, Dumaru 2010, Cassidy and Barnes 2014). Community-perceived variables compliment these approaches because they provide insight on attributes of adaptive capacity that promote adaptability and flexibility. The community-perceived variables produced in this study are context-specific, but the methods used to produce the variables can be scaled up and used in other contexts. Using these methods to produce community-perceived adaptive capacity

91 broadens the options for effective climate change adaptation strategies in mixed-subsistence communities.

3.9 Conclusion

This variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity developed in this article can contribute to building resilience in rural Samoa. The variables reveal that social networks, access to cash, livelihood diversity, and communal resources promote adaptability in rural

Samoan households. Projects designed to help rural community members to participate in the market while maintaining their ability to produce food for sale consumption and engage in resource exchange networks bolster adaptability to climate change It is critical that rural

Samoans have the flexibility to adjust to change and mobilize resources through different traditional and market—related livelihood activities. Developing variables of community- perceived adaptive will likewise help to build resilience in other communities. Additional research on these methods can help to make them efficient and cost-effective.

References Adger, W. Neil. 2003 Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography 79(4): 387-404.

Ayers, Jessica and Tim Forsyth 2009 Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 51(4): 22-31. Barnett, J. 2001 Adapting to Climate Change in Pacific Island Countries: The Problem of Uncertainty. World Development 29(6): 977-993.

Brooks, N. and W.N. Adger, 2005 Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity. In Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change, B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E.L. Malone and S. Huq, Eds. New York: Cambridge University Press: 165-182.

Cassidy, Lin and Grenville D. Barnes 2012 Understanding Household Connectivity and Resilience in Marginal Rural Communities through Social Network Analysis in the Village of Habu, Botswana. Ecology and Society 17(4): 11-29.

Daly, Michele, Namouta Poutasi, Filomena Nelson, and Jude Kohlhase 2010 Reducing the Climate Vulnerability of Coastal Communities in Samoa. Journal of International Development 22:265-281.

Eakin, H. C., M.C. Lemos, and D.R. Nelson 2014. Differentiating capacities as a means to sustainable climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change 27: 1-8.

Eakin, Hallie 2006 Weathering Risks in Rural Mexico: Climatic, Institutional, and Economic Change. Tucson, University of Arizona Press.

Ellis, F. 2000 A framework for livelihood analysis. Chapter 2. In Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Pp: 28-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Engle, Nathan L. 2011 Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change 21:647-656.

Fakhruddin, M., S. Babel, and A. Kawaski 2015 Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences 15: 1343-1356.

Ford, James D., Barry Smit, and Johanna Wandel 2006 Vulnerability to Climate Change in the Artic: A Case Study from Arctic Bay. Global Environmental Change 16: 145-160.

Furstenberg, Frank F 2005 Banking of Families: How Families Generate and Distribute Social Capital. Journal of Marriage and Family 67: 809-821.

Government of Samoa 2013 Post Disaster Needs Assessment Cyclone Evan 2012. Apia, Samoa: Government of Samoa. Available at: http://www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr/files/SAMOA_PDNA_Cyclone_Evan_2012.pdf.).

Grasso, Marco, Marta Moneo and Marco Arena 2014 Assessing social vulnerability to climate change in Samoa. Regional Environmental Change 14(4): 1329-1341.

Grootaert, Christian and Thierry van Bastelaer 2001 Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations from the Social Capital Initiative. Washington, DR: The World Bank.

IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) 2007 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch

Janssen, M., O.J. Bodin, T. Anderies, H. Elmqvist, H. Ernstson, R. McAllister, P. Olsson, and P. Ryan. 2006 Toward a Network Perspective of the Study of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 15 [online] URL: http://ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art15/

Kallen, Evelyn 1982 The Western Samoan Kinship Bridge: The Study of Migration, Social Change, and the New Ethnicity. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Publishers Lauer, Matt 2014 Calamity,kastom, and modernity: local interpretations of vulnerability in the western Pacific. Environmental Hazards 13(4): 281-297.

Marshall, Nadine A. and Paul A. Marshall 2007 Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Social Resilience within Commercial Fisheries in Northern Australia. Ecology and Society: 12 (1):1.

Nelson, Donald R. and Timothy J. Finan 2009 Weak Winters: Dynamic Decision Making in the Face of Extended Drought in Ceará, Brazil. In The Political Economic of Hazards and Disasters. EC Jones and AD Muprhy, Eds. Walnut Grove, CA: Altamira Press. Nelson, Donald R., W. Neil Adger, and Katrina Brown 2007 Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 32: 395-419.

NUS (National University of Samoa) 2006 Samoa National Human Development Report. Apia, Samoa: Centre for Samoan Studies.

Osbarhr, Henry, Chasca Twyman, W. Niel Adger and David SG Thomas 2008 Effect Livelihood Adaptation to Climate Change Disturbance: Scale Dimensions of Practice in Mozambique. Geoforum 39:1951:1964.

Paulson, Deborah D. 1993 Hurricane Hazard in Western Samoa. Geographical Review 83 (1): 43-53.

Pelling, Mark and Chris High 2005 Understanding Adaptation: What can Social Capital Offer Assessments of Adaptive Capacity? Global Environmental Change 15: 308-319.

Pettengell, Catherine and PG Oxfram 2010 Climate Change Adaptation: Enabling people living in poverty to adapt. Oxfram International Research Report.

Samoa Bureau of Statistics 2011 Population and Housing Statistics 2011. Apia, Samoa: Government of Samoa.

Samoa Meteorological Division 2011 Pacific Climate Change Science Program: Current and Future Climate of Samoa. Apia, Samoa: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

Sen, Amartya 1981 Ingredients of Famine Analysis: Availability and Entitlements. /the Quarterly of Economics 96 (3):433-464. Shankman, Paul 1976 Migration and Underdevelopment: the Case of Western Samoa. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Shankman, Paul 1993 The Samoan Exodus. In Contemporary Pacific Societies: Studies in Development and Change. Victoria S. Lockwood, Thomas G. Harding and Ben J. Wallace, eds. Pp 156-170. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Shore, Bradd 1982 Sala‘ilua, a Samoan mystery. New York: Columbia University Press.

Shuaib, Fikreth 2007 Leveraging Remittances with Microfinance: Samoa Country Report. Brisbane, Australia: Foundation for Development Cooperation.

Sietchiping, Remy 2008 Applying and Index of Adaptive Capacity to Climate change in north-Western Victoria, Australia. Applied GIS 2(3): 1-28. Smit, Barry and Johanna Wandel 2006 Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16: 282- 292.

Sutherland, Karen, Barry Smit, Violet Wulf and Taito Nakalevu 2005 Vulnerability to Climate Change and Adaptive Capacity in Samoa: the case of Saoluafata village. Tiempo 54. 11-15.

UNEP 2014 Cities and Climate Change Initiative Abridged Report: Apia, Samoa- Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nationals Human Settlements Programme.

USAID 2013 Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP): Year Two Work Plan. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K1SW.pdf

CHAPTER 4

MORE MONEY, MORE FAMILY: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGHER LEVELS OF

MARKET PARTICIPATION AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN THE CONTEXT OF ADAPTIVE

CAPACITY IN SAMOA2

2 Vickers, J. B. Submitted to Climate and Development, 08/17/2015.

Abstract

It is important to understand the effects of higher levels of market participation on the resilience of mixed-subsistence communities to climate change. Climate models predict that the Pacific

Islands and other regions with mixed-subsistence communities will experience increased climate variability, including more frequent cyclones and prolonged droughts. Authors suggest that development agencies should help to increase levels of household market participation, or the proportion of household output that is marketable, in rural communities because those with more financial assets are better equipped to respond to climatic disturbances (McCarthy et al. 2001,

Pettengell and Oxfam 2002). Other authors suggest that traditional food sharing networks and other forms of social capital are more important to the resilience of mixed –subsistence community members than financial assets (Smit and Wandel 2006). If those with higher levels of market-participation have lower levels of social capital and other forms of adaptive capacity, than higher levels of market participation reduce the resilience of mixed-subsistence community members (Campbell 1990, Barnett 2001, Pelling and Uitto 2001, Adger et al. 2002, IPCC 2007).

In this article, I demonstrate that higher levels of household market participation are not associated with reduced social capital in rural Samoa. I also demonstrate that the particular that local social institutions shape the relationships among variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity.

4.1 Introduction

It is important to understand the effects of higher levels of market participation on the resilience of mixed-subsistence communities to climate change. Climate models predict that the

Pacific Islands and other regions with mixed-subsistence communities will experience increased climate variability, including more frequent cyclones and prolonged droughts (IPCC 2007).

Authors suggest that development agencies should help to increase levels of household market participation, or the proportion of household output that is marketable, in rural communities because those with more financial assets are better equipped to respond to climatic disturbances

(McCarthy et al. 2001, Pettengell and Oxfam 2002). Other authors suggest that traditional food sharing networks and other forms of social capital are more important to the resilience of mixed

–subsistence community members than financial assets (Paulson 1993, Smit and Wandel 2006).

If those with higher levels of market-participation have lower levels of social capital and other forms of adaptive capacity, than higher levels of market participation reduce the resilience of mixed-subsistence community members (Campbell 1990, Barnett 2001, Pelling and Uitto 2001,

Adger et al. 2002, IPCC 2007). In this article, I determine the effects of higher levels of market participation on community-perceived adaptive capacity in Samoa.

There are many characteristics of adaptive capacity that promote household and community level resilience to climate change. Adaptive capacity is defined as the set of attributes—such as financial wealth, technology, and social networks—that enable people to respond and recover from climate and other environmental stress (IPCC 2007, Nelson et al.

2007). Many authors stress that cash and other financial assets are the most important forms of adaptive capacity (McCarthy et al. 2001, Pettengell and Oxfam 2002, O’Brien et al. 2004, IPCC

2007, Acosta- Milcheck and Espaldon 2008). Other authors have demonstrated that despite their

100 low levels of economic development, those in mixed-subsistence communities have high adaptive capacity because of their strong family and community-based social networks (Barnett

2001, Sutherland et al. 2005, IPCC 2007). Mixed-subsistence community members often share resources with their family and others in response to climatic and other environmental shocks

(Campbell 1990, Paulson 1993, Sutherland et al. 2005, Lauer 2014). If those with higher levels of market participation engage less in traditional resource sharing relationships than others in mixed-subsistence communities, then they may have lower levels of adaptive capacity.

The Pacific Island is an area where higher levels of market participation may be reducing resilience to climate change. Most rural Pacific Island households produce much of their food for subsistence and earn cash through wage labor and remittances (NUS 2006). The World Bank

(IFC 2013), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP 2014), Global Environmental

Facility (Bonizella et al. 2014) and many other institutions fund sustainable development projects in Pacific Islands that help rural community to participate in the market. Money earned from wage labor and remittances have enabled Pacific Islander households to buy food, vehicles, and other resources that reduce their vulnerabilities to climatic disturbances (Sutherland et al.

2005, Lauer 2014). Evidence also reveals that those with higher levels of market participation and accesses to imported goods share less of their resources with their community members than others (Campbell 1990, Paulson 1993, Lauer 2014). Without resource sharing networks, many

Pacific Islanders will be less resilient to climatic disturbances.

Mixed-subsistence households with higher levels of market participation may not have smaller resource exchange networks than others. Case studies have demonstrated situations in which market participation has not reduced social capital among kin members (Coleman 1988,

Collings et al. 1998, Evans 2001, Alesina and La Ferrara 2002, Gurven 2002). People in the

101

Pacific Island nation of Tonga have used market-related livelihood strategies such as wage-labor to increase their ability to engage in their traditional, exchange-based economy (Evans 2001).

Other evidence reveals that Pacific-Islanders and others in mixed-subsistence communities have managed many of the impacts of market integration on their valued customs and social relations

(Vaʻa 2006). Samoans have maintained their chief-based social structure in which chiefs, or matai, are the heads of extended kinships groups, or ʻaiga, and hold customary land tenure in their ʻaiga’s village (Fitzgerald and Howard 1990, Vaʻa 2006). At the same time, rural

Samoans have been adapting to economic opportunities and using remittances from their children and other relatives to increase their household wealth (Shankman 1993, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). The Samoan case presents an opportunity to learn about the relationship between household levels of market participation and social networks in the context of adaptive capacity.

This article has two goals. First, the article contributes to the broader analytical question on the relationships between increased market participation and social capital in the context of adaptive capacity. Empirical evidence demonstrates the contributions of economic wealth, social capital and other attributes of adaptive capacity (Bebbington 1990, Yohe and Tol 2002, Adger

2003, Thompkins and Adger 2005, Eakin 2006, Smit and Wandel 2006). However, economic and social attributes of adaptive capacity are often considered in isolation of one another and relationships among these variables are poorly understood (Eakin et al. 2014). In this article, I demonstrate that higher levels of household market participation are not associated with reduced social capital in the context of adaptive capacity in rural Samoa. I then argue that the particular social context of Samoa has been responsible for shaping the relationship between increased levels of market participation the size of family-based social networks.

102

The second goal of this study is to contribute to the broader discussion on the effects that higher levels of market participation and remittances have on the adaptive capacity and resilience of those in mixed-subsistence communities. In this article, I demonstrate that higher levels of market participation have not reduced adaptive capacity in Samoan villages. Rural Samoans have depended on both financial assets and locally-based social capital to buffer climate-rated events, and large nuclear family sizes have enabled rural Samoans to increase their financial assets via remittances and maintain their locally-based social capital. Furthermore, the results presented in this article suggest that cross-cultural research may provide development practitioners with the theoretical framework to better understand the effects of market participation on adaptive capacity in other Pacific Island and mixed-subsistence communities.

This article is structured into five sections. Section 4.2 presents relevant information on about the research site. In Section 4.3, I explain the process of defining households and levels of market participation, and in Section 4.4 I define social capital in the local context. In Section

4.5, I analyze the variables for 134 habitation households in Falealupo village. Quantitative analysis of the variables demonstrates levels of household market participation were not associated with differences in household social capital, but were associated with nuclear family size. In Section 4.6 I demonstrate the influence of the particular social institution of informal adoptions on nuclear family size, household market participation, and household social capital.

Section 4.7 discusses on the implications of these results for our current understanding of adaptive capacity and resilience, and Section 4.8 presents final conclusions.

103

4.2 Site Selection and Research Methods

Samoa (13.833 S, 171.75 W) is a small Pacific Island nation where market participation confronts traditional values and social institutions. Historically, social networks have been strong in Samoa and social capital has played a large role in Samoans’ adaptive capacities

(Paulson 1993, Sutherland et al. 2005). The ‘aiga was the main political and economic unit of

Samoa, and was also the main source of social capital (Kallen 1982). Until recently, ʻaiga members worked together on their communal lands and redistributed their resources (Kallen

1982, O’Meara 1987). There were also many social institutions that promoted the development of social capital among different ‘aiga. There were political groups within each village, such as the council of chiefs and the untitled men’s group, in which members of different ‘aiga worked together and shared resources (Kallen 1982, Shore 1982, Vaʻa 2006). During ceremonial fa’alavelave, which celebrated funerals, weddings, and major events, ʻaiga formally exchanged large amounts of food and other gifts (Vaʻa 2006, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). These resources exchange networks reduced enabled Samoans to mobilize resources from many sources, thereby reducing their vulnerabilities to climatic disturbances

Contemporary Samoa is a developing country where rural residents have varying levels of market participation. Apia is the nation’s capital and center of commerce. Just over half of the 190,000 residents of Samoa live Apia and its surrounding peri-urban villages, and the other

47%, live in rural villages (Government of Samoa 2011). In the last fifty years, many Samoans have migrated to Apia for economic opportunities; 74%, of employed Samoans live in Apia and surrounding villages (Government of Samoa 2011). Many Samoans have also migrated abroad

(Shankman 1976, Barnett 2001, Shuaib 2007). Over 200,000 ethnic Samoans, which is more than those in Samoa, live in New Zealand, Australia, and other foreign nations (Shuaib 2007,

104

Government of Samoa 2011). Economic development and levels of development are much lower in rural villages where there are fewer opportunities for employment (NUS 2006,

Government of Samoa 2011). Agricultural production is relatively high in rural Samoa, but most agriculture is used for household consumption (Shankman 1993). Most households in rural

Samoa have mixed-subsistence economies, but there are limited opportunities for them to earn money in the rural village.

Remittances from Apia and abroad form the sources of incomes for most rural Samoan households. Urbanization in Apia has created a domestic market for agricultural products, and many rural households profit from selling their surplus crops (Pitt 1970, Paulson 1993). Yet the domestic market is relatively small has had little impact on rural development (Shankman 1993,

Schoeffel 1994). Most rural Samoans households use money earned from wage labor and remittances to satisfy their contemporary lifestyles (Shankman 1976, Shuaib 2007, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). Some authors suggest that remittances reduce rural Samoan’s incentives to increase agricultural production (O’Meara 1990, Shankman 1993), and others suggest that customary land policies hinder rural development (Schoeffel 1994). Either way, market participation in rural Samoa is associated mostly with migration of household members from villages than with economic development within the village.

Falealupo is a village on the western tip of the island of Savai’i and is the furthest village from Apia. The population of Falealupo is just under one thousand people living in 134 habitation households. In order to live in Falealupo, the head of household or spouse must be a descendent of one of the eight ‘aiga that hold tenure in the village. In Samoa, only ‘aiga members have rights to live on customary lands, which accounts for nearly all land in villages outside of Apia (Government of Samoa 2011). Most households in Falealupo produced much of

105 their own food in their household taro farm, which is commonly referred to as a plantation.

Households also grew breadfruit, banana, yams, and other crops in their plantations. Household members fished and harvested marine resources, and many households raised chickens and pigs.

The main strategy for earning cash within the village was to sell produce in local markets. Some in Falealupo earned cash by working in other households’ plantations, and several households owned small stores and other small businesses. There were many households in Falealupo with cement walls on their houses and other signs of financial wealth, but there were also many households that did not show these signs.

Falealupo is in a relatively arid region of Samoa and the people of Falealupo experience frequent droughts. These droughts have serious impacts on the peoples’ access to fresh water and subsistence-based livelihoods, which rely heavily on taro and other rain-fed agriculture. The village has also experienced several recent cyclones, including Cyclone Val and Cyclone Ofa in the early 1990s and Cyclone Evan in December 2012—during the research period. These events present an opportunity to discuss responses to weather-related stress with community members and to better understand the effects that higher levels of market participation have on social capital and other social factors of adaptive capacity.

I collected data in Falealupo, Samoa from August 2012 to July 2013. During the first phase of research in Falealupo, I collected and analyzed mixed sets of qualitative and quantitative data that enabled me to define household market participation and social networks as a proxy for social capital in the local context. In order to achieve this, I used simple observation and participant observation in order to collect data on the village and household structures. I also conducted unstructured and semi-structured interviews with community members to collect data on household livelihoods, social networks and responses to recent droughts and cyclones. The

106 data collected from the observations and interviews were used to understand the cultural context and probability sampling methods were not required. Most informants were selected based on their availability. In the following sections I define use the results from observations and interviews to define households, levels of household market participation, and household social capital in the local context. I then used these definitions to develop a structured questionnaire for the second phase of research.

4.3 Defining Household and Market Participation in Samoa

I distinguished between the nuclear family, habitation household, economic household, and ʻaiga in Faelaupo because of the social context in Samoa. Samoans use the word ‘aiga to refer to different levels of their family, including their household, their nuclear family, and their extended kin group. For this article, I defined a nuclear family as parents and their direct descendants and a household as the habitations household, or the people that were living together in a single household in Falealupo at the time of data collection. According to a sample of 125 households in Falealupo (demographic data was incomplete for the other nine households), half of the households (N=63) were simple nuclear households with two parents

(heads of household) and their children. The majority of non-nuclear (expanded) households were multi-generational (40 households, 32% of the village) with at least three generations living together.

I defined the economic household as the members of the habitation household and all of their children, including co-residential children, children living in other households in rural

Samoa, and children who had migrated to the Apia or overseas. In Samoa, it was a social norm that children help their parents with household economic activities, even if they were not living

107 in the same habitation household (Shankman 1993). At home in the village, children helped their parents with food production, cooking, cleaning, and all other household activities. Yet most heads of households in Falealupo also had children that lived in Apia or overseas and frequently remitted money. Therefore, since it was expected that all children contribute to the economics of their parents’ habitation household, all children of those living in the habitation household were considered part of the economic household. Lastly, the ʻaiga consists of all members of the extended kinship group, including those of the economic household. There are eight ʻaiga with customary land tenure in Falealupo and all households in the village claim to belong to at least one of these eight extended families.

The market participation ratio variable was developed to measure the level of a household’s market participation. A market participating adult invested their time into earning money through labor and not through selling agricultural products and other resources that were also used for household consumption. The ratio is calculated by dividing the total number of market-participating adults by the total number of adults in the economic household. See

Section 3.7 in Chapter 3 for more explanation on how I developed the market participation ratio.

A market participation ratio value of 1.00 indicates that all of the adults of the economic household participated in the market; a value of 0.00 indicates that no adults of the economic household were in school, employed, or living in Apia or overseas. Figure 3.1 displays the distribution of the market participation ratio for 125 of the 134 economic households in

Falealupo.

108

4.4 Defining Social Capital in Context of Adaptive Capacity in Samoa

Social capital is defined as the wider social community from which one can draw upon by virtue of belonging to the community (Bourdieu 1986, Coleman 1988, Ellis 2000, Furstenberg

2005). Social capital is generated through the forming of obligation and trust among individuals so that resources may be shared between them (Coleman 1988, Furstenberg 2005). Although people in Falealupo commonly shared resources and acted collectively with others in the village, results from interviews and observations demonstrate that people formed their main exchange networks with close relatives. In Falealupo, 103 out of 134 households in Falealupo claimed to have shared food with someone in another households within the last month, and 97 of those households (73% of total village) claimed that they shared food with a member of their ʻaiga.

The social capital provided through kinship networks with close relatives has also been one of the main attributes of adaptive capacity Falealupo. According to observations and interviews, people in Falealupo rely on their ʻaiga members living in Falealupo in order to respond to climatic disturbances. After Cyclones Ofa and Val destroyed much of Falealupo in the early 1990s, residents shared food with their ‘aiga members. Residents also helped their local ‘aiga members to build new houses and develop new taro farms. During recent droughts, residents shared drinking water with their ‘aiga members. In preparation for Cyclone Evan in

December 2012, most people living near the coast either walked or drove uphill to stay with

‘aiga members living away from the coast. Local social networks formed through relationships with ‘aiga members enable community members to respond to climate disturbances in my different ways.

In addition to local social networks, residents in Falealupo also rely on ‘aiga members living in Apia and overseas to respond to climatic disturbances. Residents in Falealupo use

109 remittances from ‘aiga in order to cover costs associated with responding to climatic disturbances. After Cyclones Val and Ofa taro farms in Falealupo, residents used remittances from overseas ʻaiga members to buy rice, chicken, and other food. Residents have also remittances from ʻaiga members to buy water during droughts. Community members claimed that they used remittances to build their cyclone-safe cement houses, and to build cement water tanks to reduce their vulnerabilities to droughts. The social networks formed with ‘aiga members living in Apia and overseas enables local community members to access financial other commercial assets in response to climatic disturbances.

Residents of Falealupo develop strong social capital with many members of their ʻaiga, but they form their strongest social capital with their children, siblings, and other immediate family members. Most residents in Falealupo share their food and other resources with their immediate family members. Table 3.4 displays the responses to a question asked to members of all households in Falealupo on food sharing. Of those that shared food in the last month, 71%

(69 out of 103 households) shared food with their children, parents, or siblings living in other households. During interviews, residents likewise told stories of stories of helping their siblings to build their house and develop their taro farms. Most residents primarily receive financial assistance from their immediate family members as well. Table 3.4 shows the responses to a question to households on remittances. In 98% of the cases, remittances were sent from the head of households’ children, siblings, or spouses.

Social capital among households and their immediate family members provides an important source of adaptive capacity in Falealupo. One resident told me that after Cyclones Ofa and Val, he, his siblings, and all their children lived together in a single household in Falealupo.

They shared all resources and worked together to develop a new taro farm. Meanwhile, he and

110 local siblings were also receiving remittances from their siblings living overseas. He and his siblings used this money to re-build their own respective houses and to start developing their own taro farms. It is clear from these interviews that kinship-networks formed with immediate family members have been the most important source of social capital during recent responses to climatic disturbances. I therefore developed two variables, the Adult Children in Falealupo variable and Average Siblings in Falealupo, to measure household social capital in terms of the sizes of their networks with immediate family membership living in Falealupo.

The adult children in Falealupo variable and average siblings in Falealupo variable use the number of immediate members living in Falealupo as proxies for measuring household social capital in the context of adaptive capacity. For this article, following the definition of social capital based on the research of Coleman (1988), I treat the kinship-networked between close-relatives as the community through which members produce public goods for one another.

According results described above, each habitation household was expected to be able to draw upon the resources of their children, siblings, and other close-relatives during environmental stress. Therefore, in the context of adaptive capacity, the relative strength of each habitation household’s locally-based social capital was related to the number of close relatives were living in Falealupo.

The adult children in Falealupo variable counts the number of adult (ages 15 and older) children of members of the habitation household were living in other habitation households in

Falealupo. Although the children of habitation household members are also used to calculate the size of the associated economic household, the adult children in Falealupo variable accounts for the number of those children were living locally and not in Apia, overseas, or another village in rural Samoa. The average siblings in Falealupo variable calculates a number to represent the

111 number of the heads of each habitation household that were living in other habitation households in Falealupo. The average siblings in Falealupo variable is the same as the local social networks variable in Chapter 3; see Section 3.7 for more information on developing the variable. Figure

3.3 displays the distribution of the average siblings in Falealupo variable.

45 40 35 30 25 20 15

10 Count of of Households Count 5 0 0 1 3 3 4 5 6 7 Adult Children in Falealupo

Figure 4.1: Distribution of the Adult Children in Falealupo Variable. The mean of the variable is 1.54 children with a standard deviation of 1.55 children for 134 households.

4.5 Comparing Household Variables

After developing the variables to measure levels of household market participation and household social capital in Falealupo, I created a household questionnaire to interview each of the 134 households in Falealupo. I then used the data from the questionnaires to calculate the market participation ratio, the adult children in Falealupo variable, and the average Siblings in

Falealupo for each household. I also used the data from the questionnaire to calculate four

112 variables that measured different aspects of each habitation household’s demographics: size of habitation household, number of adults in economic household, age of the head of household, and number of children of the head of household. Table 4.1 displays the descriptive statistics for all variables. I present the results from the multiple linear regression analysis in this section, and the results of the qualitative analyses of data in Section 4.6. The analyses demonstrate that levels of market participation are not correlated with household social network sizes, and that particular social institutions, such as informal adoption, are mediate the relationships among attributes of adaptive capacity.

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of Household Variables.

Variable Mean Std. Deviation Market Participation Ratio 0.39 0.25 Adult Children in Falealupo 1.54 1.55 AVG Siblings in Falealupo 2.20 1.53 Number of Children of Head of the Household 5.39 2.66 Age of Head of the Household 53.45 14.81 Size of Habitation Household 6.29 2.91 Number of Adults in Economic Household 5.82 3.45

I used multiple linear regressions to analyze the household variables. For the multiple regressions, the market participation ratio was the dependent variable and all other variables, including both variables measuring household social capital and the four variables measuring household demographics, were the independent variables. The multiple linear regressions tested combinations of all the independent variables to find the best model to predict variation in the market participation ratio. Significant negative correlations (p-value<0.05) between the market participation ratio and both the adult children in Falealupo variable and average siblings in

113

Falealupo variable would have implied that increased levels of household integration into the market was associated with less family-based social capital in Falealupo. Significant positive correlations (p-value<0.05) between the market participation ratio and the variables measuring household demographics would have implied that market participation was associated with larger household sizes and/or larger nuclear families of the head of household. Tables 4.2 displays the results from the linear regression analysis.

Only one model from the multiple linear regression analyses predicted change in the market participation ratio. In this model, the number of children of the head of household variable is the only variable and is positively correlated with the market participation ratio.

Figure 4.2 illustrates the distribution of the size of the nuclear families of 125 of the 134 heads of habitation households in Falealupo. However, the predictive value of the number of children of the head of household variable is not strong; each additional child predicts that the market participation ratio variable will increase on the scale of 0 to 1 by 0.029 units. The difference of four out of six and three out of six adults participating in the market is ratio value of 0.167. The number of children of the head of household variable does not predict much change, but is the only variable with significant correlation with the market participation ratio variable.

There is no evidence that households with higher levels market participation have less family-based social capital in Falealupo. Both the average siblings in Falealupo variable and adult children in Falealupo variable failed to correlate with significance with the Market participation ratio. Although households increase their level of participation into the market though migration, households with higher levels of market participation do not have significantly fewer adult children and siblings living in other households in Falealupo. There is only a slight association between the size of the nuclear family and the household market participation

114 variable. In the following section I analyze household demographic data and ethnographic data in order to explore the relationships among nuclear family size, levels of market participation, and local social networks.

Table 4.2: Linear Regression Model Summary. Linear regression predicting household Market Participation Ratio. Adjusted R2=0.085, F=12.516, P-Value=0.001. Significance was set at 0.05.

Independent Variable Coefficient Standard t P-Value Error Number of Children of Head of HH 0.03 0.01 0.30 0.001 Constant 0.24 0.24

Variables Excluded via Stepwise Adult Children in Falealupo -0.13 -1.31 0.194 Average Siblings in Falealupo 0.12 1.37 0.174 Number Adults Economic HH 0.12 1.09 0.278 Size of Habitation HHH -0.05 -0.54 0.591 Age Head of Household 0.05 0.55 0.584

Count 10

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Children of Head of Household

Figure 4.2: Distribution of the Nuclear Family Size Variable. The mean of the variable is 5.39 children with a standard deviation of 2.66 children for 134 households.

115

4.6 Qualitative Analyses of Variables

Results from qualitative analyses of interviews and observations demonstrate that social institutions influence the relationships amongst variables of adaptive capacity. Households in

Samoa often have shifting membership (Shore 1982, Fitzgerald and Howard 1990). It is common for Samoans to live with different immediate family and other ʻaiga members for extended amounts of time (Shore 1982, Fitzgerald and Howard 1990). The kinship system in

Samoa is similar to the Hawaiʻian kinship system, in which kinship terms are generational and do not distinguish ones father from their uncle (O’Meara 1990). Heads of households often take on the role the parent or guardian of one or more children of their immediate family or other

ʻaiga members; this is a social institution I define in this article as informal adoption. Informal adoptions are one social institutions that enable households to increase their market participation livelihood diversity and maintain family-based social capital in Falealupo.

Rural Samoans prefer to have relatively large nuclear family sizes. During interviews on family size, residents in Falealupo told me that an ideal nuclear family comprised of least five children. One resident explained that with five children, two children could stay in Falealupo and work in the household taro farm, and three children could remit money from Apia or overseas. Other residents had similar explanations of their ideal family size: a few children living in Falealupo, and a few children remitting money from abroad. This was also a common household economic strategy Falealupo. Over half of the heads of household in Falealupo (69 out of 125 economic households, or 55% of the economic households) had children living both in Falealupo and in Apia or overseas. Large family sizes enable economic households to increase their levels of market participation while maintaining members in the local household.

116

Large nuclear families enable rural Samoans to increase their levels of market participation without reducing the size of their local social networks. Many of the children that stay in Falealupo will start their own households in Falealupo. Larger nuclear families will have more children available to migrate and to start households in Falealupo. As a result, larger nuclear families have been are able to increase their level of market participation without reducing the size of their local social network. In the context of adaptive capacity, large nuclear family sizes enables households to share resources with immediate family members in Falealupo, and to access cash from immediate family in Apia and overseas. These results help illustrate the relationships among nuclear family size, market participation, and social capital in Samoa.

The results from interviews and observations also help to illustrate the influence of social institutions on variables of adaptive capacity. Although relative fertility plays a role in nuclear family size, the institution of informal adoption also promotes the development of large household sizes. Samoans commonly adopt members of their ʻaiga, which increases the size of their nuclear families. The heads of one household in Falealupo, Household A, adopted two children, A3 and A4, from two of their biological children. One of these biological children, A1, then moved to Apia to work. The other biological child, A2, moved to with her uncle in

Falealupo and work in her uncle’s store. All of these children, A1-A4, now consider each other siblings with the same set of parents, the heads of Household A. As a result of these adoptions, heads of Household A increased the size of their nuclear family by two members. Also, since both A1 and A2 found employment after the adoptions, these adoptions enabled economic household A to increase its level of market participation.

Informal adoption helps households to increase their level of market participation livelihood diversity without reducing their local social capital. The head of another household in

117

Falealupo, Household B, adopted two young adult boys, B1 and B2, from ʻaiga members. These boys worked in the household taro farm and helped with other household activities. Meanwhile, the head of Household B owned a small store in Falealupo, and was paying for his young adult biological son to attend high school in Apia. The informal adoptions increased the nuclear family size of Household B by two adult members. The adoptions also helped to increase the household’s level of participation in the market and livelihood diversity: two adults were working in the household farm and two adults participating in the market. These adoptions will also help Household B to maintain a local social network in the village. Both of the adopted sons of Household B were originally from other villages but planed on staying in Falealupo, where they would continue to help their father, head of Household B.

Both examples of Household A and B illustrate that the institutions of adoption simultaneously influenced several attributes of adaptive capacity. In both cases, adoptions led to increases in the households’ levels of market participation and livelihood without reducing its local social capital. Informal adoption was very common throughout Samoa, and it is expected that most households that adopted children also increased levels of community-perceived adaptive capacity. These examples help to illustrate how informal adoption and other social institutions mediate the relationships among variables of adaptive capacity, and maintain levels of market participation without reducing their local social capital.

4.7 Discussion

This article provides insight on the effects of higher levels of market participation on adaptive capacity in mixed-subsistence communities. The climate change adaptation literature presents contrasting perspectives on the capacities of Pacific Island and other mixed-subsistence

118 communities to adapt to increased cyclones, droughts, and other novel climate conditions. The members of these communities are considered some of the most vulnerable to climate change because of their low household incomes and limited financial assets (Barnett 2001, Pelling and

Uitto 2001, , IPCC 2007, 2014, Eakin et al. 2014). In contrast, some authors suggest that these communities have high levels of resilience and adaptive capacities because of their strong family and community-based social networks (Barnett 2001, Pelling and Uitto 2001, Sutherland et al

2005, IPCC 2007, Eakin et al. 2014). It is predicted that increasing market participation will ultimately disrupt social networks and decrease adaptive capacity in these communities (Pelling and Uitto 2001, IPCC 2007). This case study demonstrates that higher levels of market participation are not associated with reduced levels of local social capital in Samoa.

The first goal of this article was to contribute to the broader analytical question of the relationships between financial and social capitals in the context of adaptive capacity. In

Falealupo, households with higher levels of market participation did not have smaller local social networks or other variables of community-perceived adaptive capacity. Economic households with many employed household members and emigrants living in Apia and overseas did not have less immediate family members living in Falealupo. There was also no qualitative or ethnographic evidence to suggest that economic households with higher levels of market participation exchanged less resources with their immediate family members than other economic households. It cannot be assumed that households with higher levels of market participation have less social capital in the context adaptive capacity than households that participate more in the subsistence economy.

The results this article also demonstrates that prestige and cultural capital shape the relationships among different forms of adaptive capacity. In the Samoan kinship system, there

119 are no words to distinguish parents from aunts and uncles, siblings from cousins, or children from nieces and nephews (O’Meara 1990). Shifting household membership and informal adoptions are embedded in this cultural system that promotes household flexibility. Fluid household membership promotes household adaptive capacity, but there may be a trend towards favoring households with more prestige and cultural capital. Heads of households with more money and other advantages are more likely to informally adopt children. Head of Household B, who informally adopted two boys, owned a small store, had four siblings living overseas, and was one of the wealthier residents in the village. His two adopted sons were very proud to be living with Head of Household B, and they hoped that their service, or tautua, to him would earn them matai titles and stake in the store. Cultural values and prestige shape local actions and effect responses to climatic disturbances

The second goal of this article was to contribute to the discussion of the effects of higher levels of market participation on the adaptive capacity and resilience of mixed-subsistence households. There was no evidence that higher levels of market participation and their corresponding impacts on Samoan society were associated with reductions on local adaptive capacities. Other research in Samoa has also described the use of family-based social networks to respond to climatic disturbances (Paulson 1993, Sutherland et al. 2005). The results of this article are supported by other research that demonstrates that people in Samoa (Vaʻa 2006) and other mixed-subsistence communities have managed the impacts of globalization and maintained many of their valued customs and social relations (Evans 2001, Gurven 2002, Godoy et al.

2004). Higher levels of market participation may have even increased the adaptive capacity and resilience of people in Samoa and other mixed-subsistence communities. Access to cash has enabled members of these communities to purchase cell phones, radios, cement water tanks,

120 vehicles, paved roads, and other capacity building resources. The use of these resources was observed when coastal community members in Falealupo drove to stay in safer houses away from the coast hours before Cyclone Even reached Samoa in December, 2012.

The strength of Samoan social networks in the future is uncertain. Researchers suggest that remittances and other forms of social support will not provide enough adaptive capacity to buffer increased climatic disturbances (Sutherland et al. 2005, IPCC 2007). If Samoans need more money in order to respond to increased climatic disturbances, social institutions will continue to change. Several authors have pointed out that globalization and increased monetization of Samoa culture have resulted in fundamental changes to the Samoan social system (O’Meara 1995, 1987, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). In the early 20th century, many Samoans living near Apia responded to a new demand for imported resources by selling their customary lands to Europeans (Meleisea et al. 1987). Samoa’s constitution now forbids residents to sell customary lands, but the desire to increase individual financial profits has resulted in family members informally privatizing sections of their customary family lands

(O’Meara 1987). Household incomes, remittances, commodification of resources, and other changes to Samoan culture have led to diminished strengths of social capital among extended

‘aiga members and among the different ʻaiga of each village (Macpherson and Macpherson

2009). If climate change produces demands for more money in rural villages, then Samoan and other mixed-subsistence community members will continue to amend the interpretation and expression of many valued customs.

In this case study, higher levels of household market participation were not associated with reduced local social capital in terms of locally-based immediate family members. The relationships among these community-perceived variables are mediated by adoptions and other

121 local social intuitions. The social norms that promote the development of social capital among immediate and other ‘aiga members are influenced by customary land tenure policies, the chief- based social system, and other social institutions. Changes in these policies would influence change in social institutions and associated social norms. Formally privatizing customary lands would present opportunities for Samoans to sell their village lands to outsiders. A change is residency patterns from one based on heredity to one based on economics would inevitably reduce the size of family-based social networks in local villages. Changes in land tenure would also reduce the flexibility of rural responses to climatic disturbances, such as when residents of

Falealupo built new houses away from the coast after the storm surges of Cyclone Ofa. This article uses a synchronic perspective on the relationships among variables; diachronic perspectives will provide more insight on the long-term effects of market participation on the adaptive capacity and resilience of mixed-subsistence communities.

4.8 Conclusion

The conclusion of this article is that higher levels of market participation are not associated with reduced levels of social capital in the context of adaptive capacity in rural

Samoa. Climate change adaptation projects and other sustainable development projects that aim to help rural Samoans to participation in the market will not diminish the strength of their immediate family-based social networks. These projects help rural Samoans to access resources that strengthen their resilience to climatic disturbances. More cross-cultural research from the

Pacific Islands and other mixed-subsistence communities will help to better understand the contexts that shape the relationships among financial and social attributes of adaptive capacity.

Research with diachronic perspectives will provide more insight on long-term effects that

122 increased market participation has had adaptive capacity, which will help us to better evaluate the resilience of mixed-subsistence communities to climate change. A better theoretical understanding of the impacts of increased market participation on adaptive capacity in mixed- subsistence communities enables stakeholders to strengthen long-term resilience.

References

Acosta-Michlik, L., and V. Espaldon 2008 Assessing vulnerability of selected farming communities in the Philippines based on a behavioural model of agent's adaptation to global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 18(4): 554-563. Adger, W. Neil. 2003 Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography 79(4): 387-404.

Adger, WN, P.M. Kelly, A. Winkels, L.Q. Huy, C. Locke 2002 Migrations, Remittances, Livelihood Trajectories and Social Resilience. Ambio 31(4): 358-366.

Alesina, Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara 2002 Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics 85: 207-234. Barnett, J. 2001 Adapting to Climate Change in Pacific Island Countries: The Problem of Uncertainty. World Development 29(6): 977-993.

Bonizella, Biagini, Saliha Dobardzic, Roland Sundstrom, Fareeha Iqbal, Chibulu Luo and Rawleston Moore 2014 GEF Programming Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change: Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund. Global Environment Facility

Bourdieu, Pierre 1986 The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. J. Richardson, ed. Pp 241-258. New York, Greenwood.

123

Campbell, J. 1990 Disasters and Development in a Historical Context: Tropical Cyclone Response in Banks Island, Northern Vanuatu. International Journal of Mass Emergencies 8(3): 401-424.

Coleman, James 1988 Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American Journal of Sociology. 49: s95-s120

Collings, Peter, George Wenzel and Richard G. Condon 1998 Modern Food Sharing Networks and Community Integration in the Central Canadian Arctic. Arctic 51(4): 301-314.

Eakin, H. C., M.C. Lemos, and D.R. Nelson 2014. Differentiating capacities as a means to sustainable climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change 27: 1-8.

Eakin, Hallie 2006 Weathering Risks in Rural Mexico: Climatic, Institutional, and Economic Change. Tucson, University or Arizona Press

Ellis, F. 2000 A framework for livelihood analysis. Chapter 2. In Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Pp: 28-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Evans, Mike 2001 Persistence of the Gift: Tongan Tradition in Transnational Context. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Fitzgerald, Maureen H and Alan Howard 1990 Aspects of Social Organization in three Samoan Communities. Pacific Studies 14(1): 31- 54.

Furstenberg, Frank F 2005 Banking of Families: How Families Generate and Distribute Social Capital. Journal of Marriage and Family 67: 809-821.

Government of Samoa 2011 Population and Housing Statistics 2011. Apia, Samoa: Samoa Bureau of Statistics

124

Gurven, Michael 2002 Economic Games Among the Amazonian Tsimane: Exploring the Roles of Market Access, Costs of Giving, and Cooperation on Pro-Social Game Behavior. Experimental Economics 7: 5-24.

IFC (International Finance Corporation) 2013 Annual Report. Washington DC: World Bank Group

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch

NUS (National University of Samoa) 2006 Samoa National Human Development Report. Apia, Samoa: Centre for Samoan Studies.

O’Meara, J Tim 1990 Samoan planters: tradition and economic development in Polynesia. Fort Worth, Texas: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

125

O’Meara, J Tim 1987 Samoa: customary individualism. In Land Tenure in the Pacific. Ron Crocombe, ed. Suva, Fiji: University of South Pacific Press.

Paulson, Deborah D. 1993 Hurricane Hazard in Western Samoa. Geographical Review 83 (1): 43-53.

Pelling, M. and J. I. Uitto 2001 Small Island Developing States: Natural Disaster Vulnerability and Global Change. Environmental Hazards 3: 49-62.

Pettengell, Catherine and PG Oxfram 2010 Climate Change Adaptation: Enabling people living in poverty to adapt. Oxfram International Research Report.

Pitt, David 1970 Tradition and economic progress in Samoa a case study of the role of traditional social institutions in economic development. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

MacPherson, Cluny and Laʻavasa MacPherson 2009 The Warm Winds of Change: Globalization in contemporary Samoa. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Nelson, Donald R., W. Neil Adger, and Katrina Brown 2007 Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 32: 395-419.

Shore, Bradd 1982 Sala‘ilua, a Samoan mystery. New York: Columbia University Press.

126

Shuaib, Fikreth 2007 Leveraging Remittances with Microfinance: Samoa Country Report. Brisbane, Australia: Foundation for Development Cooperation.

Smit, Barry and Johanna Wandel 2006 Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16: 282- 292.

Sutherland, Karen, Barry Smit, Violet Wulf and Taito Nakalevu 2005 Vulnerability to Climate Change and Adaptive Capacity in Samoa: the case of Saoluafata village. Tiempo 54. 11-15.

Thompkins, Emma L. and W. Neil Adger 2005 Defining Response Capacity to Enhance Climate Change Policy. Environmental Science and Policy 8: 562-571.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) 2014 Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience. 2014 Human Development Report. New York, NY: UNDP.

Va‘a, Unasa F. 2006 The Fa‘asamoa. In Sāmoa National Human Development Report 2006: Sustainable Livelihoods in a Changing Sāmoa. Asofou So‘o, ed. pp. 8-17. Apia, Samoa: National University of Sāmoa.

Yohe, G and RSJ Tol 2002 Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 12:25-40.

127

CHAPTER 5

IMMEDIATE FAMILY FIRST: EFFECTS OF MARKET PARTICIPATION ON ADAPTIVE

CAPACITY AND RESILIENCE IN RURAL SAMOA3

3 Vickers, J. B. To be submitted to American Anthropologists.

128

Abstract

There are two perspectives on vulnerability to climate change, and these perspectives are sometimes at odds. Both perspectives are founded on the principle that natural disasters are the result of both the natural phenomena, which include climatic disturbances, and the existing social conditions (Oliver-Smith 2004, Berkes 2007). In one perspective, poverty is the primary determinant of vulnerability to climatic disturbances (IPCC 2007, 2014, World Bank 2010). In the second perspective, people are vulnerable to climatic disturbances because social institutions constrain them from commanding resources in response to disturbances and other change (Sen

1981). The concern is that market participation erodes the social institutions that promote resource sharing in indigenous, mixed-subsistence communities (Campbell 1990 Paulson 1993,

Barnett 2001, Sutherland et al. 2005, IPCC 2007, Lauer 2014). In this article, I analyze ethnographic data on social networks and financial assets in terms of adaptive capacity in Samoa.

I then compare the results to research on pre-market Samoa to understand the effect of market participation on adaptive capacity and resilience in Samoa. The results reveal that market participation has increased the adaptive capacity or rural Samoans, but an increase in climatic disturbances will cause those in rural Samoa and other remittance-based economies to become increasingly dependent on their immediate family members for financial assistance.

129

5.1 Introduction

There are two perspectives on vulnerability to climate change, and these perspectives are sometimes at odds. Both perspectives are founded on the principle that natural disasters are the result of both the natural phenomena, which include climatic disturbances, and the existing social conditions (Oliver Smith 2004, Berkes 2007). It is important to understand the social conditions that cause vulnerability to natural hazards because climate change models predict that cyclones, droughts, and other climatic disturbances will become more frequent and more intense (IPCC

2007, 2014, World Bank 2010). In one perspective, poverty is the primary determinant of vulnerability to climatic disturbances (IPCC 2007, 2014, World Bank 2010). The International

Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC (2007, 2014), the World Bank (2010) and others claim that those in less-developed communities have limited capacity to respond to climate disturbances because they lack financial assets and technology (Brooks et al. 2005). Many organizations are therefore helping those in mixed-subsistence communities to participate in the market and increase their financial assets (World Bank 2010). Community members can use financial assets to purchase food, water, technology, and other resources in response to climatic disturbances.

In the second perspective, people are vulnerable to climatic disturbances because social institutions constrain them from commanding resources in response to disturbances and other change (Sen 1981). Poverty is not itself an indicator of vulnerability, because many in less- developed communities reduce the risks associated with climatic disturbances through resource- exchange networks (Sen 1981, IPCC 2007). Pacific Islanders and other indigenous community- members have had high resilience to climate disturbances in the past because they have shared resources and worked collaboratively with their family and other community members (Paulson

1993, Pelling and Uitto 2001, Adger 2003, Pelling and High 2005, Forde et al. 2006, Smit and

130

Wandel 2006). The concern is that market participation erodes the social institutions that promote resource sharing in these communities (Campbell 1990 Paulson 1993, Barnett 2001,

Sutherland et al. 2005, IPCC 2007, Lauer 2014). Recent research reveals that those with higher levels of market participation share less food and other resources with community members in response to climatic disturbances (Campbell 1990, Paulson 1993, Lauer 2014). In this case study,

I determine the influence of higher levels of market participation on the strength of social networks in the context of climate change resilience in Samoa.

A case study in Samoa provides valuable insight on the relationships among market participation, social networks, and climate change resilience. Samoa is a small island developing nation and is prone to extreme weather events (World Bank 2010). Recent cyclones and other events have caused major damages to Samoa’s infrastructure and national economy (World Bank

2010, Government of Samoa 2013). Changes in the scale and impact of these types of natural disasters are likely consequences of climate change because sea level rise and warmer average sea surface temperatures will increase the intensity and damage from major storms (World Bank

2010, Samoa Meteorological Division 2011). Half of Samoa’s population of 190,000 live in rural villages and produce most of their food for consumption (NUS 2006). Rural Samoans have had high resilience to climatic disturbances because of their social networks among family and other community members (Paulson 1993, Sutherland et al. 2005, Pelling and Uitto 2005, IPCC

2007). Meanwhile, rural Samoans have been participating to varying degrees in the global market. In this article, I demonstrate that market participation has reduced the sphere of Samoan social networks, but that financial assistance received from immediate family members has strengthened rural Samoans’ resilience to climatic disturbances.

131

The results from this article help us to understand the resilience of Samoans and others in less-developed communities to current and future climate change. I evaluated the community- perceived adaptive capacity of residents in Falealupo village in order to understand resilience in the local context. Adaptive capacity is defined as the set of attributes that enables people to anticipate and effectively respond to specific (climatic) threats (IPCC 2007, Lemos et al. 2013,

Eakin et al. 2014). Scholars have demonstrated the importance of attributes of adaptive capacity, such as financial wealth and social capital, but these attributes are often studied in isolation and little is known about the interactions amongst attributes (Eakin et al 2014). These results from

Chapter 4 suggest that those households with higher levels of market participation do not have smaller local social networks. In this article, I analyze ethnographic data on social networks and financial assets in terms of adaptive capacity. I then compare the results to research on pre- market Samoa to understand the effect of market participation on adaptive capacity and resilience in Samoa. The results reveal that an increase in climatic disturbances will cause those in less-developed, remittance-based economies to become increasingly dependent on their immediate family members for financial assistance.

This article is divided into four main sections: background information, site and methods, results, and discussion. In the background section, I summarize the context of adaptive capacity and social capital in Samoa. I then explain the background context of social change as a result of globalization and economic growth in Samoa. In the next section I give information on the field site in Samoa and then briefly explain my research methods. The results section is then divided into three subsections. In the first sub-section, I describe the economic ties between different households of each kinship network. I then illustrate the use of kinship networks in Samoa to respond to ceremonial faʻalavelave before demonstrating the similarities of this social institution

132 to that of responses to faʻalavelave that result from extreme weather events. In the discussion section I apply the research findings to the goals of this article.

5.2 Adaptive Capacity and Social Capital

Adaptive capacity is one of the main concepts that researchers use to understand and evaluate the resilience of community members to climate disturbances and climate change. There are two main sets of attributes of adaptive capacity: 1) economic and technological attributes, and 2) social attributes (IPCC 2007). These attributes reduce community members’ vulnerabilities to climate disturbances and enable them to respond to climate change (IPCC

2007, Engle 2011). Climate change adaptation strategies primarily focus on improving the economic and technological attributes of a vulnerable community because these attributes are tangible and better fit policy outcomes (Engle 2011). Social attributes are more difficult to address with adaptation policy, but have long provided community members with adaptive capacity and resilience to climatic disturbances.

The first set of attributes of adaptive capacity are economic and technological attributes.

Economic and technological attributes of adaptive capacity are financial and physical assets that reduce the vulnerability of community members to climatic disturbances (IPCC 2007). Financial assets, especially cash, are fungible and can be easily transferred into goods and resources in response to disturbances and climate change (De Soto 1996, Ellis 2000). Residents of less- developed or mixed-subsistence communities have been able to buffer food and water shortages caused by droughts, cyclones, and other climatic disturbances (Paulson 1993, IPCC 2007,

Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon 2008). Technological assets include weather-forecast systems, flood relief systems, and other resources that reduce the exposure and sensitivity of communities

133 to climatic disturbances (IPCC 2007). Sea-walls are helping to protect Pacific Islander and other coastal communities from tsunamis and storm surges (Sutherland et al. 2005, Dumaru 2010,

USAID 2013). Technological and economic attributes of adaptive capacity enable community members to buffer climatic disturbances and maintain the status quo.

Social attributes form the second set of adaptive capacity attributes. Social attributes are non-asset-based characteristics that are embedded in local social institutions. Social capital is one of the social attributes that provides people with the capacity to respond and adapt to global climate change (Coleman 1988, Berkes and Folke 1994, Ellis 2000, Adger 2003, Smit and

Wandel 2006). Social capital is generally defined as the group of individuals upon which its members can draw by virtue of belonging to the group (Ellis 2000: 36, Furstenberg 2005).

Unlike other forms of capital, social capital depends on the structure of relationships between and among individuals (Coleman 1988). Social capital is contextual, and its form and function depend on the social institutions that regulate relationships between individuals and organizations (Coleman 1988, Putnam 1993, Adger 2003 Furstenberg 2005). Two of the more commonly recognized units of social capital are the family and the community, including both kin and non-kin members (Coleman 1988, Adger 2003, Furstenberg 2005, Smit and Wandel

2006). The social capital formed through family and community members is especially important in rural, less-developed communities.

Social capital enables group members to mobilize assets in response to climatic disturbances. At the community level, different households share resources among group members in response to climatic disturbances (Paulson 1993, Adger 2003, Lauer 2014).

Resource-sharing networks expand individual households’ assets so that they include those of other households, thereby sharing the risks associated with climatic disturbances with other

134 group members (IPCC 2007). In addition to enabling community members to access larger stocks of assets, social networks promote non-economic benefits during natural hazards, such as knowledge sharing and the mitigation of psychological stress (Paulson 1993, Adger 2003,

Sutherland et al. 2005, Smit and Wandel 2006, IPCC 2007). Scholars argue that food sharing, cooperative action, and other forms of social capital are more important to the resilience of those in mixed-subsistence communities than are financial assets and technology (Pelling and Uitto

2001, Smit and Wandel 2006). Social networks have long promoted adaptive capacity and resilience to those in communities without large stocks of financial assets and without modern technology.

5.3 Adaptive Capacity in Pre-Market Samoa

Mixed-subsistence communities have histories of responding to climatic disturbances and other environmental change prior to market integration. Many of the social institutions of mixed-subsistence and non-market communities that promote adaptive capacity result from evolutionary processes between social systems and the local environments (Smit and Wandel

2006, Nelson et al. 2007, Engle 2011). These social institutions enable community members to respond favorably to disturbances, thereby reducing their vulnerabilities to climate disturbances.

Samoans first started interacting with Europeans in the 19th century, and cash was a limited aspect of the rural Samoan economy until the mid-20th century (Meleisea et al.1987). There are many descriptions of pre-market Samoan social institutions, and many of these institutions promoted social capital among kinship group members and kinship groups. Resource sharing within these groups reduced risks associated with disturbances and promoted resilience to climate and other environmental change.

135

Pre-market Samoans formed strong social capital with the members of their extended kinship group, or ʻaiga. Pre-market Samoans were horticulturalists who lived in distinct, autonomous coastal villages throughout the islands of the Samoan archipelago (Kallen 1982).

The core political, economic, and social units of each village were the 10-30 resident ʻaiga

(Kallen 1982). Each ʻaiga was headed by one or more chiefs, or matai, and held communal land tenure in a village (Shore 1982, Sutherland et al. 2005, Stewart –Whithers and O’Brien 2006).

The members of each ʻaiga were related, whether through birth, marriage, or adoption, to one of the founding families of the village (Kallen 1982). ʻAiga members lived in separate households in the village, but they all lived and produced food together on the ʻaiga’s communal land

(Kallen 1982, O’Meara 1987). The food and other resources produced by ‘aiga members were pooled and redistributed by the matai (Kallen 1982, O’Meara 1990). Samoans formed tight social networks with their resident ʻaiga members, and sharing and resource redistribution was a part of their daily experience.

Many other social institutions also promoted resource exchange among ‘aiga members.

The ceremonial faʻalavelave was one institution that developed strong social capital among ‘aiga members. While the word faʻalavelave has several different meanings in the Samoan language, it is most commonly used in association with formal ceremonies celebrating a wedding, funeral, matai title bestowal, or other social event (Stewart –Whithers and O’Brien 2006). During ceremonial faʻalavelave, representatives of guest ʻaiga publically exchanged gifts with their hosts (O’Meara 1990). To prepare for ceremonial faʻalavelave, ‘aiga members would have to work hard to produce surplus food, woven mats, and other resources to be exchanged at the ceremony (O’Meara 1990). Matai exchanged the gifts and then redistributed the goods received to ʻaiga members (O’Meara 1990). With institutions like ceremonial faʻalavelave, ‘aiga

136 members developed strong reciprocal relationships that enabled them mobilize resources within their group in response to climatic disturbances. .

Pre-market social institutions also promoted the development of social capital among different ʻaiga of a village. There were several formal groups within each village in which members of different ʻaiga worked together, shared resources, and developed strong relationships. The village council, or fono, was the governing body of each village comprised of the matai of each resident ʻaiga. In the fono, matai worked collaboratively to manage the village and resolve issues (Shore 1982, Kallen 1982). There were also the group of untitled men, or

ʻaumaga, and of the young women, or aualuma. The ʻaumaga acted as servants to the chiefs; they enforced village rules and maintained the common grounds (Shore 1982). The aualuma helped to entertain traveling guests during faʻalavelave and other inter-village events (Shore

1982). Through collectively working and performing other activities together, the members of these groups form bonds through which they mobilize assets.

Pre-market social institutions also helped Samoans to develop social capital among ʻaiga of different villages. Political alliances existed amongst the matai titles of different villages

(Shore 1982). Matai maintained these alliances through exchanging gifts with other matai during ceremonial faʻalavelave. During malaga, ʻaiga members or all community members would spend extended periods of time at another village. Although malaga more commonly occurred during social celebrations, the institution of the malaga also enabled those suffering from famine to spend periods of time in a village with surplus food (Vaʻa 2006). Institutions such as the malaga that built exchange networks between villages reduced Samoans’ vulnerabilities to droughts, cyclones, and other climatic disturbances that affected their entire village.

137

Like many other non-market societies, the social capital developed through traditional social networks played a large role in the adaptive capacity of pre-market Samoans. Samoans formed their strongest social capital with their extended kinship members, but they also formed social capital with their local community members and those in other communities. Social institutions provided Samoans with expansive networks through which they commanded resources in response to climatic disturbances.

5.4 Market Participation and Social Change in Samoa

Over the last century, Samoans have been earning more money, causing changes to social institutions that promoted resource exchanges among individuals. Many aspects of traditional

Samoan society, to which Samoans refer as faʻaSamoa, have remained relatively unchanged

(Vaʻa 2006). The matai of each ‘aiga still hold customary tenure in most rural villages, which account for over 80% of Samoan land (Shore 1982, , O’Meara 1987, Schoeffel 1994). Most

Samoans frequently exchange resources with others, and ceremonial faʻalavelave form a major component of Samoan society (Kallen 1982, Shore 1982, O’Meara 1990 Vaʻa 2006).

Researchers have also revealed notable changes to traditional Samoan social institutions.

Agriculture sales and overseas employment have given Samoans opportunities to earn money, and these opportunities have in turn created more of demand for financial assets (O’Meara 1990,

Macpherson and Macpherson 2009).

Recent changes to the Samoan social structure include the decentralization of the ‘aiga and reduced authority of matai over ‘aiga members. The ‘aiga has become decentralized in recent years; most ʻaiga members do not live on the customary land of their rural village

(Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). More than half of the population of Samoa currently live

138 in urban Apia, where there are employment opportunities; only 47% of Samoans live in the rural villages (Samoa Bureau of Statistics 2011). Starting in the 1950s, employment opportunities produced pull factors for Samoans to emigrate to New Zealand and other overseas nations (Vaʻa

2005). According to current population estimates, more Samoans live abroad than in Samoa; there are 190,000 citizens of Samoa, while 200,000 ethnic Samoans, half of whom were born in

Samoa, live overseas (Shuaib 2007). The distribution of ʻaiga members makes it more difficult for ʻaiga members to interact and develop strong ties (Shankman 1993). Additionally, migrants are removed from many of the social pressures of their matai and other kin living in rural

Samoan villages (Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). In pre-market Samoa, ‘aiga members pooled their resources, but now migrants have the freedom to not contribute to their ʻaiga

(Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). Decentralization of the ‘aiga and reduced authority of matai have enabled Samoans to act with more individual agency and to choose not to develop social capital with the members of their ʻaiga.

Other changes to traditional Samoan social institutions that affect the development of social capital are individualization of earned incomes and informal privatization of communal lands. In recent decades, individuals have been keeping much of their income earned through agricultural sales, wage labor, and remittances (Pitt 1970, O’Meara 1990, MacPherson and

MacPherson 2009). Most ʻaiga members share money and other resources with others and contribute to ceremonial faʻalavelave, but ‘aiga members are no longer required to pool and redistribute all resources (Shankman 1976, MacPherson and MacPherson 2009). German colonialization introduced a foreign market for banana, cocoa, and other cash crops during the

20th century (Meleisea et al. 1987). More recently, the domestic market for taro and other subsistence crops has increased in response to population growth in urban Apia (Pitt 1970,

139

Paulson 1997). The incentive to produce surplus crops resulted in a demand for individuals to informally privatize sections of the ‘aiga customary land and to independently manage its resources (O’Meara 1990, MacPherson and MacPherson 2009). This adjustment to the customary land tenure practices enables individuals to directly profit from efforts to increase production (O’Meara 1990). Most contemporary rural Samoans now manage their own private section of their ʻaiga’s customary land (O’Meara 1987, 1990). These and other changes to pre- market social institutions reduce Samoans’ participation in resource-exchange networks and development of social capital.

There is some evidence that pre-market social institutions no longer provide Samoans with adaptive capacity. Samoans no longer practice the malaga, nor do villagers spend extended periods of time in a host village (Vaʻa 2006). The disappearance of the malaga has reduced the flexibility of rural Samoans to respond to climatic disturbances. Research also suggests that

Samoans with higher levels of market participation are less likely to share food with community members outside of their ‘aiga (Paulson 1993). The diminished strength of food-sharing networks likewise increases Samoans’ vulnerability to climatic disturbances; those who shared less food with others in their community ate more rice and other imported food with less nutritious value than taro and other traditional crops (Paulson 1993). Research has not revealed how these changes in Samoans’ adaptive capacity are associated with higher levels of market integration. In this case study, I provide evidence that higher levels of market participation have reduced the size of Samoans’ social networks, but have also enabled rural Samoans to access more money and other resources in response to climatic disturbances.

140

5.5 Research Site and Methods

Falealupo is a rural Samoan village that has experienced recent climatic disturbances and has households with varying levels of participation in the market. Falealupo is on the west coast of the island of Savaiʻi, which is a region that frequently experiences droughts between the months of April and October (Burgess 1983, Samoa Meteorological Division 2011). These droughts impact people’s access to fresh water and subsistence-based livelihoods, which rely heavily on taro and other rain-fed agriculture. The village has also experienced destructive cyclones. In 1990 and 1991, Cyclone Ofa and Cyclone Val destroyed most of the homes and plantations in Falealupo. After the cyclones, many of the residents who were living near the coast relocated inland, where they would be safe from storm surges. Residents have since moved back towards the shore; 31 of the 134 households were in the coastal section of the village. Cyclone Evan hit Samoa in December 2012, which was during the research period. The cyclone caused major damage to Apia and other villages on the island of ʻUpolu; there was no major damage in Falealupo.

According to my household surveys, the population of Falealupo was just under one thousand people living in 134 households. For this research, a household was defined as the unit of people who were currently living together and sharing household responsibilities. According to a sample of 125 habitation households in Falealupo (demographic data was incomplete for the other nine households), the average household size was 6.29 people per household (standard deviation=2.907) and half of the households (N=63) were simple nuclear households with two parents and their children. Non-nuclear households had one or more of the heads of households’ parents or siblings living with them. As in most rural villages, only descendants of each of the village’s eight ʻaiga had customary land rights in the village. Each ʻaiga comprised an average

141 of 17 resident households in Falealupo village. Almost all households in Falealupo had mixed- subsistence economies, both earning money and producing much of their own food. Table 3.1 in

Chapter 3 displays the top sources of income for the households in Falealupo. The top source of income for most households was remittances, with wages and agricultural sales as the other main sources of income. A few households ran small stores in the village, and two households on the coast had facilities for a small number of tourists.

I collected mixed sets of qualitative and quantitative data in Samoa from August 2012-

August 2013. The majority of the research was carried out in Falealupo, but I also interviewed ten people in Apia. In Falealupo, I collected data using unstructured interviews, semi-structured interviews, and observations. I collected data in Apia using unstructured interviews. The objective of the research methodology was to first develop an understanding of community- perceived attributes of adaptive capacity, and then to seek to further understand those attributes.

I used unstructured and semi-structured interviews in order to develop an understanding of community-perceived adaptive capacity in Falealupo. My intention was to start the research without any assumptions about adaptive capacity in Falealupo, and then to translate community members’ experiences with climatic disturbances into attributes of adaptive capacity. After moving into Falealupo, I first took a demographic survey of the 25 households closest to my own in order to become more familiar with the community. I then started discussing recent cyclones and droughts with community members. I selected informants for these interviews based on their availability. I conducted 24 unstructured interviews on recent cyclones, drought, and

Samoan values. I collected data from 71 interviews using four different semi-structured interview questionnaires on cyclones, droughts, family, and livelihoods. The results from the interviews suggested that kinship networks were a main source of community members’

142 perceived adaptive capacity. Some of the respondents also explained that they shared food and water with their non-kin community members during droughts and cyclones and also used food- gifts from the government to buffer the damages caused by Cyclone Ofa. However, these non- kin social networks were discussed far less by community members than their kinship networks.

After determining that kinship networks were one of the main sources of perceived adaptive capacity, I proceeded to explore Samoan kinship networks, particularly in the context of adaptive capacity. I interviewed ten people in order to better understand kinship networks between Apia and rural villages. I also interviewed each of the 134 households in Falealupo using a questionnaire with both structured and semi-structured responses on household demographics, household social networks, and responses to recent droughts and cyclones. All data that was collected in the Samoan language was transcribed and translated by professional translators living in Apia.

In addition to data collected through interviews, much of my data was also collected using observation and participant observation. In Falealupo, I was able to participate in daily activities and casually interact with community members. I also participated in two ceremonial faʻalavelave in Falealupo. In addition to cultural events, I also experienced the dry season in

Falealupo, during which rain was scarce but did not produce severe drought conditions.

Nonetheless, I did share the water from my water supply with other community members during this time. I also experienced Cyclone Evan while living in Falealupo. Cyclone Evan did not cause major damages to Falealupo, but I was able to participate in the preparations for the cyclone. I also was able to use Cyclone Evan as a discussion point for semi-structured interview questions. I used an interpretative analysis of all texts from interviews and field notes. I also

143 used a qualitative analysis of the quantitative data in order to analyze and interpret trends in the data.

5.6 Resource Exchange Networks

Samoans frequently share and exchange resources with others. When we first arrived in

Falealupo, a new neighbor brought my wife and I breadfruit and canned fish to eat for dinner. I soon found myself in several exchange-based relationships with community members. The neighboring children and young men would bring us taro and other food in exchange for the opportunity to watch movies and play games on our computers. When a friend of mine from the

US arrived in Falealupo with a box filled with donated rugby cleats and other rugby gear, young men from throughout the village soon arrived at my house carrying large plates of food as exchange gifts. In this section, I analyze Samoan resource exchange networks. The results demonstrate that Samoans form their strongest resource exchange networks with their immediate family members.

Demographic information from Falealupo reveals the close relationships formed between immediate family members. Many of the households in Falealupo comprised adult immediate family members living together. 68 of the 125 households sampled were extended households.

Of these 68 extended households, 62 were multigenerational, 23 were collateral and multigenerational, and 6 were just collateral. There were no households with household members who were not immediate family members, which includes parents, children, and siblings, and siblings’ children. While living together, household members shared food and other resources.

144

Movement of household members among different households also reveals close relationships among immediate family members. While in Falealupo, I observed that residents, particularly children, lived or spent extended amounts of time in different households in the village. I took demographic information on the adults, which included residents fifteen years and older, of the 25 households closest to my house when I first arrived in September 2012 and again in July 2013. 20 of those 25 households (80% of sample) had demographic changes in terms of the number of adults living in the households. In 15 of these households, those adults moving between households were children of the head of household; the other five households were new families. Movement of household members among different households promotes and reinforces the development of strong social capital among the households.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that in many of these cases, the children were moving between the households of the parents and the households of their parents’ siblings. In the

Samoan language, there are no specific words to distinguish nieces and nephews from children, or aunts and uncles from parents. It took me several months of living in Falealupo to realize that heads of households were referring to all youth living in their households, including their biological nieces and nephews, as their children. Members of my field assistant’s household, who were some of the residents I knew best in Falealupo, frequently moved among different households of their immediate family members. When I first arrived, there were six children of the head of household living in the household. During the year, all but the youngest child, who was only two years old, had also lived in a household of their siblings or of their parents’ siblings in Falealupo.

The five households closest to my house also exchanged household members with siblings and other immediate family members. In some cases, these exchanges were with

145 siblings living overseas. Two of my neighbors were visited by their overseas siblings during

Christmas. A nephew from overseas lived in one of these households for several months before returning to Australia; my neighbor planned to have his two young children live with their uncle in Australia, where they would have a better education. Although these immediate family members were living in different households, often households in different countries, the movement of people among households maintained strong social capital among these social networks.

In addition to living together and exchanging household members, Samoans formed their strongest resource exchange networks with their immediate family members. Residents in

Falealupo frequently shared food with others in their community. In a household survey, I asked members of each household to list with whom they shared food in the last month. Table 3.4 in

Chapter 3 displays the results from the 134 households surveyed. Of the 103 households that claimed to have shared food in the last month, 70 households, or 68%, shared food with immediate family members living in other households in the village. The majority of other households, or 27 households, shared food with other ʻaiga members, and only six households shared food with non-relatives. Food sharing was common in Falealupo, especially among immediate family members.

Residents of Falealupo also borrowed and shared money with others in the village.

Results from household surveys, which are reported in Table 3.4, reveal that households share money primarily with immediate family members. Of the 68 households that claimed to have shared money with another household in the last month, 44 households, or 65% of the sample, shared money with immediate family members. An additional 10 households shared money shared with other members of their ʻaiga, and 13 households shared money with non-relatives.

146

The non-relatives with whom residents shared money included pastors. Most Samoans donate money to their church weekly, and village residents share the responsibilities of providing food and other resources to their village pastor. If the households that shared money with non- relatives, who were mostly village pastors, were not counted in the results, then 80% of the sample, or 55 households, shared money with immediate family members. As with food, most residents share money with their immediate family members.

In addition to exchanging money with immediate family and others in Falealupo, most residents received remittances from others in Apia and abroad. In the household surveys, I asked community members from whom they had received remittances in the last three months. Table

3.4 displays the results from this survey question. The majority of remittances were received from immediate family members. Of those 91 households that received remittances in the last three months, 83 households, or 93% of the sample, received their remittances from immediate family members. Six of the other households received remittances from other ʻaiga members, and two households did not identify their source of remittances. The results reveal that immediate families form the strongest networks for financial assistance and other resources exchange. In the following section, I demonstrate the role of immediate family in providing adaptive capacity to rural Samoans.

5.7 Responses to Recent Ceremonial Faʻalavelave

Residents of Falealupo formed strong resource-exchange networks with their immediate family members. Residents of Falealupo used these family-based social networks to access financial assets. Community members used money to pay for food. Even those that produced almost all their food bought sugar for their daily tea. Community members also used money to

147 pay for electricity, clothes, school fees, and contributions to the church. Most residents did not use much money during the week, unless there was a ceremonial faʻalavelave. Ceremonial faʻalavelave are relatively frequent in Samoa. One resident told me that her family participates in at least four ceremonial faʻalavelave in a year, and a man in Apia told me he contributes money to ceremonial faʻalavelave every few weeks. ʻAiga members are responsible for contributing money as part of the gift exchange during ceremonial faʻalavelave. In the following section, I explain how residents of Falealupo mobilize financial assets in order to respond to ceremonial faʻalavelave. The process of responding to ceremonial faʻalavelave was very similar to the process of responding to climatic disturbances.

The following vignette is a common example of responses to ceremonial faʻalavelave in rural Samoa. Tipo was a resident of Falealupo who hosted two ceremonial faʻalavelave at his house during the research period. Tipo lived with his elderly father, his wife, and his five young children. Tipo earned most of his income by selling fish to local shopkeepers, and told me that he could earn about $20-$100 WST ($9-$45 USD) a week selling fish. One of Tipo’s two brothers lived in Falealupo and the other lived in Australia. Tipo’s uncle, who was matai of their

ʻaiga, also lived in Australia. Tipo’s father had been sick for several years, and one day he passed away. The ʻaiga decided to host the ceremonial faʻalavelave to honor Tipo’s father at

Tipo’s house.

In the days after the death, Tipo, his uncle, and other immediate family members prepared for the ceremonial faʻalavelave. Tipo’s brother and uncle arrived from Australia within a few days after the death to help organize the food, cash, and other gifts of the ceremonial fa‘alavelave for the guests’ ʻaiga. Tipo and his ‘aiga expected at least three other ʻaiga, or about fifty guests, to participate in the ceremonial faʻalavelave. Tipo told me that the total costs

148 exceeded $10,000 WST, or $4,545 USD. Tipo borrowed $100 WST from me, which he paid back in fish and other food, in order to contribute. Many of Tipo’s other ‘aiga also contributed money, but his uncle from Australia covered over half the cost and his brother from Australia covered a large proportion too. Tipo later hosted another ceremonial faʻalavelave for another deceased immediate family member. Tipo and other rural ʻaiga members contributed the location, traditional crops, pigs, woven mats, and small amounts of money to the ceremonial fa’alavelave; Tipo’s immediate family from overseas covered most of the financial costs.

Most other residents of Falealupo also use their social networks to cover financial costs.

In a household survey, I asked each household how they could get $20 WST ($9.05 USD) and

$100 WST ($45.25 USD) within one week for a ceremonial faʻalavelave. Table 5.1 displays the results from all the households. Residents were less confident about raising larger amounts of money. The majority of households, or 86%, claimed they would be able to get $20, but only

41% claimed they could get $100. Residents were also much more likely to use social networks to access larger amounts of money. Less than half of households, or 35%, would use remittances for $20; most households would sell taro or use wage labor to earn the money. In contrast, over half of the household, or 55%, would earn $100 from remittances. Only 8 households could earn

$100 selling taro or fish, whereas 53 households could earn $20 from these livelihood activities.

Social networks enable rural Samoans to access large amounts money when contributing to ceremonial faʻalavelave.

149

Table 5.1: Sources of Money for Ceremonial Faʻalavelave. The source that each household claimed they would use to get the given amount of money in one week for a ceremonial faʻalavelave.

Source $20 $100 Incapable 18 79 Remittances 27 29 Work 20 13 Sell Fish 12 1 Sell Agriculture 41 7 Sell Handicrafts 5 2 Other (Loan) 11 3

Most rural Samoans mobilize money through their immediate family networks in order to pay for ceremonial faʻalavelave. During household surveys, I asked members of each household to list from whom they had received remittances in the last three months. Table 3.4 displays the results from this question. The large majority of households, or 91%, received their remittances from immediate family members. Other ʻaiga members do contribute financial assistance to their rural relatives; six households claimed they received remittances from other ‘aiga members.

Yet Table 3.4 demonstrates that ‘aiga members are much less likely to contribute financial assistance than they are to share food with their extended kin members. For financial assistance, rural Samoans seek help from their immediate family in Apia and overseas.

Residents in Apia and overseas cover most of the costs associated with the ceremonial faʻalavelave of their ʻaiga, especially for those of their immediate family members. All seven residents of Apia that I interviewed said that they frequently contribute money to ceremonial faʻalavelave. Two of these young men were small business owners in Apia and claimed that they contributed at least $50 WST ($22.7 USD) every other week to ceremonial faʻalavelave.

150

Furthermore, they told me that when the ceremonial fa’alavelave was for an immediate family member, they contributed much larger sums. A woman that I interviewed told me that she has taken out several $1000 WST ($450 USD) loans in order to contribute to ceremonial faʻalavelave of rural immediate family members. She told me, “It’s expected of me…so I don’t give my family a bad name if a lot of people come [to the ceremonial faʻalavelave] and there is no food to feed them.” Two other young men had recently migrated from rural villages in order to help earn money for their parents. They told me, “That’s why we came here, to work. ‘Cause we need money to help the family for, you know, faʻaSamoa, the faʻalavelave.” Rural Samoans need immediate family in Apia and overseas to help cover the costs of ceremonial faʻalavelave and other events.

5.8 Responses to Recent Climatic Disturbances

Residents of Falealupo frequently respond to climatic disturbances. Sharing food and other resources with immediate family and other local community members helps residents to buffer these disturbances. Resources such as cement water tanks and cement houses also reduce the vulnerabilities of rural Samoans to climatic disturbances. A cement water tank holds 10,000

L of water, which provides enough drinking water for a household to last several months without rain. Cement houses provide safety from the strong winds and storm surges during cyclones. In order to pay for these resources, rural residents mobilize money through their social networks.

The following vignette is an example of responses to climatic disturbances in Falealupo.

Prior to Cyclone Ofa in 1990, Sefa and his four local siblings lived in separate households near the coast. Cyclone Ofa destroyed their homes. The five siblings, their spouses, and children moved into a single household. While living together, the siblings worked quickly to plant new

151 breadfruit trees around their house and to plant new taro in a household farm. Meanwhile, their overseas siblings remitted money for financial assistance. Those in Falealupo used the remittances to purchase materials for new houses. Once they had new houses, the siblings relocated their nuclear families and they became five separate households again. Sefa told me that he and his siblings were able to recover from the cyclone because they worked together in

Falealupo and received money from their immediate family overseas.

The financial assistance from immediate family members has reduced the vulnerability to cyclones of many in Falealupo. Like Sefa and his siblings, residents used remittances to build new houses after Cyclone Ofa. Many of these houses were built with cement or imported timber because both materials are stronger than local forest timber, and are therefore more resilient during cyclones. In a household survey, I asked members of each household to list from where they got their money to pay for recent home improvements. Table 3.2 displays the results from this question. The large majority of households used remittances to improve their houses, and

Table 3.4 reveals that most households have received their most recent remittances from immediate family members.

Financial assistance from immediate family members has also reduced rural Samoans’ vulnerabilities to droughts. Many residents in Falealupo and neighboring villages have large cement water tanks that collect and store rain water. Residents told me that their water tanks have always provided their households with enough drinking water to last the dry seasons.

Those that did not have their own water tank told me that they couldn’t afford one. The materials for one 10,000L tank, including the cement, rebar, and chicken wire, cost $17000 WST

($772 USD). Many households in Falealupo received their water tanks from the Red Cross and other international aid agencies. Tipo, the man who hosted two ceremonial faʻalavelave, told me

152 that his brother in Australia sent him the money for the water tank. Results from a household survey, which are displayed in Table 3.2, reveal that most other households have also used remittances to pay for their water tanks. Financial assistance from immediate family members enables rural Samoans to access imported resources that increase their adaptive capacities to droughts, cyclones, and other climatic disturbances.

5.9 Discussion and Conclusion

Immediate family-based social networks play large roles in providing community members in Falealupo with adaptive capacity. In the following section, I evaluate the effects of market participation on adaptive capacity and resilience in Samoa. Market participation has changed social networks in other areas. For example, liberalizing the economy in Vietnam diminished the role of the state in providing adaptive capacity to rural villages, but these changes were offset by the development of new market-related social networks (Adger 1999). In many mixed-subsistence communities, such as Falealupo, market participation has reduced the size of community members’ social networks to include just those in their immediate families (Small

1997). At the same time, market participation enables residents of mixed-subsistence communities to access cash and other resources in response to climatic disturbances (Adger

1999). It will become more difficult for the current strategies to provide adaptive capacity to those in mixed-subsistence, remittance-based communities.

Market participation has reduced the size of social networks in mixed-subsistence communities. In pre-market Samoa, Samoans developed strong social capital with their ʻaiga members, those in different ‘aiga, and those in different villages (Kallen 1982, Shore 1982,

O’Meara 1987, 1990, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). Residents in contemporary Falealupo formed their resource exchange networks with the members of their immediate family. Other

153 research in Samoa also reveals that market participation has attenuated social networks among non-kin members (Paulson 1993, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009). These results also complement those from other mixed-subsistence societies where market participation has reduced the sizes of resource exchange networks (Campbell 1990, Small 1997, Collings et al.

1998, La Ferrara 2003, Forde et al. 2006). Resource exchanges were common among extended family members and other community members in pre-market societies, but those in mixed- subsistence societies primarily exchange resources with their immediate family members.

Smaller social networks reduce resilience to climate disturbances in less-developed communities. Larger social networks provide more options through which individuals can mobilize resources in response to climatic disturbances. Those who did not exchange resources with non-kin members were more vulnerable to food shortages after Cyclone Ofa in Samoa

(Paulson 1993). The loss of inter-island trade networks has increased the vulnerabilities of residents in Vanuatu to climatic disturbances (Campbell 1990). Prior to increasing their participation in the market, residents of Vanuatu would temporarily relocate to a village on another island when their village was destroyed by a cyclone (Campbell 1990). Much like the

Samoan malaga, this social institution has disappeared in Vanuatu. Residents of mixed- subsistence communities now have smaller resource bases through which they can mobilize their assets in response to climatic disturbances. With smaller resource bases, mixed-subsistence community members are more vulnerable to climatic disturbances.

Market participation has also enabled members of mixed-subsistence communities to access financial assets and new technologies. It was difficult for those in pre-market Samoa to access resources that were not in their village or region. Older residents in Falealupo told me that during a drought in 1983, before most residents had access to money, everyone in the village

154 would have to wake up very early to fill bottles and empty coconuts with brackish spring water during low tide. Now, residents can buy drinking water from local stores and pay the water company to fill their water tanks. Residents also have cars, radios, telephones, and other technologies that improve their ability to respond to climatic disturbances. Because of the radio and other weather-forecasting technology, residents in Falealupo had over twelve hours to wrap their houses with tarps and prepare themselves for Cyclone Evan. Remittances have increased the adaptive capacities of poor, rural people throughout the world (Nelson and Finan 2009,

Barnett and Webber 2010, ICIMOD 2015). Mixed-subsistence community members use remittances to cover costs when responding to climatic disturbances.

The current strategy has strengthened adaptive capacity in Samoa, but climate change may cause rural Samoans to become too dependent on receiving financial assets in order to respond to increased climatic disturbances. Money has enabled those in mixed-subsistence communities to buffer climatic disturbances despite reductions in the sizes of their social networks. In pre-market Samoa, community members commanded food and other resources from other ‘aiga and other villages after climatic disturbances. Now, residents have smaller networks through which they can mobilize resources, and therefore must purchase food and other resources from the store (Paulson 1993). Residents in Falealupo claimed that they bought food after recent cyclones and bought water during recent droughts. Climate change will give crops less time to regrow between climatic disturbances, and residents in rural communities will need to buy food to buffer lapses in production. Rural community members will also need to improve their infrastructure in order to reduce their vulnerabilities to increased climatic disturbances

(Sutherland et al. 2005). Mixed-subsistence community members will rely more on remittances

155 from their immediate family members as their local environment becomes more variable and more extreme.

It will become more difficult for those immediate family members to provide adaptive capacity to those in mixed-subsistence communities. Climate change will produce pressure for increased migration from rural villages. It is unlikely that migrants will be able to send more money to their rural relatives. The economic connections among migrants and their rural relatives attenuate over time (Shankman 1993, Small 1997, Macpherson and Macpherson 2009).

Mixed-subsistence community members will respond to the need for more money by increasing the number of immediate family members that migrate overseas. This response will increase vulnerabilities to climatic disturbances in rural villages. More productive adults will leave rural villages in order to earn money abroad, and households will have fewer adult immediate family members living in the local rural village. An increase in vulnerability to climate change in rural villages exacerbates the need for more money. The case study in Samoa reveals that market participation enables migrants to bolster the adaptive capacities of their immediate family members living in mixed-subsistence communities; however, increased demand for remittances will reduce the resilience of mixed-subsistence communities to climate change.

Market participation enables mixed-subsistence communities to access financial resources, but reduces the size of social networks. Climate change adaptive strategies that increase levels of market participation in mixed-subsistence communities are helpful because financial assets increase adaptive capacities. It is also important to help strengthen social networks in mixed-subsistence communities. More research in these communities is needed to provide insight on maintaining social capital among extended kin and other community

156 members. The resilience of these communities to climate change depends on their ability to mobilize resources through multiple local and global networks.

References

Adger, W. Neil 1999 Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and Extremes in Coastal Vietnam. World Development 27(2): 249-269.

Adger, W. Neil. 2003 Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography 79(4): 387-404.

Barnett, Jon and Michael Webber 2010 Accommodating Migration to Promote Adaptation to Climate Change. Work Bank Policy Research Paper. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

Berkes, Flikret 2007 Understanding Uncertainty and Reducing Vulnerability: Lessons from Resilience Thinking. Natural Hazards 41: 283-295.

Berkes, Filkret and Carl Folke 1994 Linking Social and Ecological Systems for Resilience and Sustainability. Beijer Discussion Papers no. 52: 1-16.

Bohannan, P 1997 [1955] Some Principles of Exchange and Investment among the Tiv. In: Perspectives on Africa. R.R. Grinker and C.B. Steiner, eds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

157

Campbell, J. 1990 Disasters and Development in a Historical Context: Tropical Cyclone Response in Banks Island, Northern Vanuatu. International Journal of Mass Emergencies 8(3): 401-424.

Collings, Peter, George Wenzel and Richard G. Condon 1998 Modern Food Sharing Networks and Community Integration in the Central Canadian Arctic. Arctic 51(4): 301-314. Eakin, H. C., et al. 2014 Differentiating capacities as a means to sustainable climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change 27: 1-8.

Ellis, F. 2000 A framework for livelihood analysis. Chapter 2. In Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Pp: 28-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Evans, Mike 2001 Persistence of the Gift: Tongan Tradition in Transnational Context. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Fairburn, Te‘o 1985 Island Economies: Studies from the Pacific. Suva, Fiji: University of South Pacific.

Forde, James D., Tristian Pierce, Frank Duerden, Chris Furgal, and Barry Smit 2006 Climate Change Policy responses for Canada’s Inuit Population: the importance of and opportunities for adaptation. Global Environmental Change 20: 177-191.

Furstenberg, Frank F 2005 Banking of Families: How Families Generate and Distribute Social Capital. Journal of Marriage and Family 67: 809-821.

Government of Samoa 2013 Post Disaster Needs Assessment Cyclone Evan 2012. Apia, Samoa: Government of Samoa. Available at: http://www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr/files/SAMOA_PDNA_Cyclone_Evan_2012.pdf.).

Gurven, Michael 2002 Economic Games Among the Amazonian Tsimane: Exploring the Roles of Market Access, Costs of Giving, and Cooperation on Pro-Social Game Behavior. Experimental Economics 7: 5-24.

158

ICIMOD (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development) 2015 Role of Remittances in building household level adaptive capacity in the flood affected rural communities in Lakhimpur district, Assam, India. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD.

IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) 2007 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch

IPCC 2014 Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.

Kallen, Evelyn 1982 The Western Samoan Kinship Bridge: The Study of Migration, Social Change, and the New Ethnicity. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Publishers.

La Ferrara, Eliana 2003 Kin Groups and Reciprocity: A Model of Credit Transactions in Ghana. American Economic Review 93(5): 1730-1751. Lauer, Matt 2014 Calamity,kastom, and modernity: local interpretations of vulnerability in the western Pacific. Environmental Hazards 13(4): 281-297.

Lesorogol, Carolyn K. 2003 Transforming Institutions Among Pastoralists: Inequality and Land Privatization. American Anthropologist 105 (3): 531-542.

Milner, G. B 1966 Samoan Dictionary. Auckland, New Zealand: Pasifika Press.

159

Oliver Smith 2004 Theorizing Vulnerability in a Globalized World: A Political Ecological Perspective. In Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development, and People. Greg Bankoff, George Frerks, and Dorthea Hilhorst, eds. Pps 10-24. London: Earthscan.

O’Meara, J Tim 1995 From Corporate to Individual Land Tenure in Western Samoa. In Land, Custom and Practice in the South Pacific, Gerard R. Ward and Elizabeth Kingdon, eds. Pp: 109-157. Cambridge University Press.

O’Meara, J Tim 1990 Samoan planters: tradition and economic development in Polynesia. Fort Worth, Texas: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

O’Meara, J Tim 1987 Samoa: customary individualism. In Land Tenure in the Pacific. Ron Crocombe, ed. Suva, Fiji: University of South Pacific Press.

Paulson, Deborah D. 1993 Hurricane Hazard in Western Samoa. Geographical Review 83 (1): 43-53.

Pitt, David 1970 Tradition and economic progress in Samoa a case study of the role of traditional social institutions in economic development. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

Putnam, Robert D. 1993 Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Samoa Meteorological Division 2011 Pacific Climate Change Science Program: Current and Future Climate of Samoa. Apia, Samoa: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

160

Samoa Bureau of Statistics 2011 Population and Housing Statistics 2011. Apia, Samoa: Government of Samoa.

Scott, James C. 1976 The Moral Economy of the Peasant. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Shore, Bradd 1982 Sala‘ilua, a Samoan mystery. New York: Columbia University Press.

Shuaib, Fikreth 2007 Leveraging Remittances with Microfinance: Samoa Country Report. Brisbane, Australia: Foundation for Development Cooperation.

Small, Cathy A. 1997 Voyages: From Tongan Villages to American. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Smit, Barry and Johanna Wandel 2006 Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16: 282- 292.

Stewart-Whithers, Rochelle R. and Anthony P. Obrien 2006 Suicide Prevention and Social Capital: A Samoan Perspective. Health Sociology Review 15: 209-220. Sutherland, Karen, Barry Smit, Violet Wulf and Taito Nakalevu 2005 Vulnerability to Climate Change and Adaptive Capacity in Samoa: the case of Saoluafata village. Tiempo 54. 11-15.

161

Vaʻa, Unasa 2005 Searching for the Good Life: Samoan International Migration. In Department of Anthropology Colloquium.

World Bank 2010 Economics of Adapting to Climate Change: Samoa. New York: The World Bank Group.

162

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION

The objective of this dissertation was to use a case study from Samoa to provide insights on the effects of effects of market participation on the adaptive capacity and resilience of mixed- subsistence communities to climate change. The results from the case study in Falealupo reveal four conclusions. First, the study demonstrates that market participation contributes to the adaptability and flexibility of mixed-subsistence households. Resilient households have the flexibility to adapt and manage the impacts of climate change and other disturbances (Smit and

Wandel 2006, Eakin 2006, Nelson et al. 2007). Chapter 3 reveals that market participation has increased livelihood diversity of mixed-subsistence households. Households in rural Samoa produce subsistence agriculture, exchange resources with immediate family and other community members, and participate in the market. Household livelihood diversity has expanded Samoan’s options for responding to climatic disturbances. In response to climatic disturbances, households produce more food, share resources with others, and buy imported resources. Participating in the market has provides mixed-subsistence with more flexibility to adjust and make changes in response to or in anticipation of climate change.

The second conclusion of the case study is that market participation has strengthened the adaptive capacity and resilience of mixed subsistence communities. In Chapter 4, I demonstrate that higher levels of market participation have are not associated with reduced social capital.

Households in Falealupo with higher levels of market participation do not have smaller resource exchange networks in the local village. Resource sharing networks reduce vulnerabilities to

163 climatic disturbances (Paulson 1993, IPCC 2007, Lauer 2014), and those with higher levels of market participation are not less likely to share networks with others in response to climatic disturbances. At the same time, those market participation enabled mixed-subsistence households to access economic assets and imported resources in response to climatic disturbances (Eakin 2006, IPCC 2007). Many households in Falealupo have used remittances to buy water tanks, thereby reducing their vulnerabilities to droughts and cyclones. Market participation has not only expanded the options for responding to climate change, but it enables mixed-subsistence households to access new resources.

The third conclusion is that increased market participation has attenuated the sphere of social capital in the context of adaptive capacity. In Chapter 5, I provide evidence that increased market participation has reduced the social networks that promote adaptive capacity in mixed- subsistence communities. In pre-market Samoa, households formed strong resource exchange networks with members of their ʻaiga, members of their village, and members of other villages.

Now, most Samoans form their strongest social networks with their immediate family members.

As a results, mixed-subsistence households have smaller resources bases from which they can draw resources in response to climate change. In Samoa, the impacts of reduced social networks may be offset by increased access to economic resources.

The final conclusions is that increasing dependency on the market in response to increased climatic disturbances will reduce the resilience of mixed-subsistence households to climate change. An increased frequency of climatic disturbances will provide less time for recovery in mixed-subsistence households. After cyclones, it takes at least three months households in Falealupo to grow new taro in their household farms. If there are several cyclones in one season, rural Samoan households may have to several months without producing their

164 own food. With smaller local through which they share resources, rural Samoans would be more dependent on money in order to buffer food shortages. A growing demand for migrations to

Apia and overseas would reduce productivity in rural villages and the size of local exchange networks, creating a system of dependency on market participation. With more cash, rural

Samoans will be able to offset many of the losses associated with higher levels of market participation. For example, households with higher levels of market participation in Falealupo pay laborers to work in their household farms. Ultimately though, the diminished options for responding to climate change reduces the adaptability and resilience of mixed-subsistence households. Responding to climate change may cause mixed-subsistence households to cross a threshold level after which their resilience becomes reduced.

In summation, climate change adaptation practitioners should work with mixed- subsistence community members to increase their abilities to participate in the market. Market participation reduces mixed-community members’ risks and increases their adaptability to climate change and other disturbances. Climate change adaptation practitioners need to also work with community members to strengthen their resource exchange networks and other sources of adaptive capacity. This dissertation provides insight on methods that can help to evaluate adaptability and resilience in mixed-subsistence communities, but additional resources is needed to reveal strategies for bolstering adaptability in these communities.

References

Eakin, Hallie 2006 Weathering Risks in Rural Mexico: Climatic, Institutional, and Economic Change. Tucson, University of Arizona Press.

IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) 2007 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch

165

Lauer, Matt 2014 Calamity,kastom, and modernity: local interpretations of vulnerability in the western Pacific. Environmental Hazards 13(4): 281-297.

Nelson, Donald R., W. Neil Adger, and Katrina Brown 2007 Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 32: 395-419.

Smit, Barry and Johanna Wandel 2006 Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16: 282- 292.

166