Most of Fiji’s coastal fisheries are experiencing overfishing and declining productivity. The impacts of climate change are increasingly being felt across coastal ecosystems, affecting the many people who depend on them for food security and income.

For many communities, marine resources serve as an important livelihood base. However, rising sea temperatures and increased frequency and intensity of climate-induced disasters are degrading ecosystems, leading to declines in fish stocks and other marine resources. These impacts have been compounded by unsustainable and destructive fishing practices, such as spearfishing with compressors and poaching within community-based marine protected areas (MPAs).

Additionally, terrestrial-based pressures from unsustainable land practices, such as land clearing, are resulting in pollutant runoff that further degrades coral reef systems.

In response to these challenges, WCS-Fiji, through the Climate Adaptation and Protected Areas Initiative, initiated community-based small-scale enterprises to reduce fishing pressure on traditional fishing grounds in the Bua District, Fiji. A locally viable, climate-resilient and nature-positive initiative was identified: kuta (a freshwater sedge used in traditional weaving).

The Kuta Story

The kuta (Eleocharis dulcis) is a native wetlands reed that is traditionally harvested and woven into mats, attire, and handicrafts by women in the provinces of Bua, Cakaudrove, and Macuata on Vanua Levu Island. Kuta is woven and worn as garments for weddings, birthdays, and other special occasions in Fiji. When an individual wears kuta, they are identified as having cultural links to one of the three provinces on Vanua Levu—Bua, Macuata, and Cakaudrove. Kuta’s unique weaving patterns increase its economic potential as it can also be woven into handbags, mats, and other household décor, making it a popular commodity both locally and overseas.

Recognizing the cultural and economic potential of kuta, WCS-Fiji is revitalizing this craft to provide sustainable income generation opportunities for women. Additionally, the project included restoring wetlands to ensure sustainable supply of the reed, while  supporting the ecosystem function of these areas, acting  as a natural sponge to reduce downstream impacts of pollution on coral reefs.

After securing permission to undertake the project through a formal Free Prior and Informed Consent process, WCS-Fiji met with women in the Bua District to gauge their interest in reviving kuta weaving. The response was overwhelmingly positive, confirming local interest and paving the way for the team to begin focused training and support.

Following the consultations, WCS-Fiji, through the Cooperative Business Unit of the Ministry of Trade, Cooperatives, and Small and Medium Enterprises, organized and delivered a training workshop on governance and cooperative registration, attended by 133 community members (98 female, 35 male), including 41 youth participants. This workshop aimed to establish a robust organizational framework for the creation of a kuta-focused cooperative, laying the groundwork for long-term sustainability and self-governance of the initiative. Notably, women's participation was high and active throughout the training. To support initial production efforts, WCS-Fiji distributed essential cultivation and harvesting equipment, including gloves, hats, knives, knife files, and gumboots to participants. These resources were critical to enabling safe harvesting of kuta and to ensuring the viability of the enterprise from the onset.

The Yasi Boi Yawa Women’s Cooperative was successfully formed and registered, with  Maraia Bibi elected as chairperson. In Bibi’s words, “I am grateful for the awareness by WCS-Fiji for bringing to light some ideas in which kuta can be farmed and commercialized as a source of income generation for us women in this village.” She further emphasized the importance of resource sustainability and diversification, noting -

"I hope this does not end here; I hope that this women’s group finds alternative sources of livelihood and does not rely heavily on kuta, ensuring we do not run out of it as it holds cultural significance to us"

Maraia Bibi

The WCS -Fiji team anticipates that the revitalization of kuta weaving will not only provide alternative income streams for women in Bua but also promote broader participation in nature-based solutions for ecosystem restoration, as the presence of kuta reeds is an indication of a healthy wetland. Kuta stabilizes r mud and silt, reducing erosion, which can be detrimental to downstream waterways. It is expected that this initiative will contribute to the re-establishment of traditional social ties across the participating communities and support the emergence of local women as environmental stewards and entrepreneurs.

How Fijian Communities Are Protecting Their Reefs From Illegal Fishing

Illegal fishing is a significant threat to Fiji's climate-resilient reefs and the food security of coastal communities. Importantly, the persistent occurrence of illegal fishing within customary fishing grounds has resulted in diminishing returns for subsistence and small-scale commercial fishers, eroding both food security and income streams.

In response to these challenges, the communities of Bua, Bureta and Nakorotubu Districts are working with WCS-Fiji to undertake community surveillance and enforcement to enhance fisheries management and safeguard community-based MPAs. This initiative aligns with national priorities under the Ministry of Fisheries’ mandate to strengthen local governance of fisheries resources.  

Community representatives participated in a structured training program encompassing the Boat Master Licence, Class 6 Restricted Licence, and Honorary Fish Warden certification in the districts.

 The training, conducted in collaboration with the Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji and the Ministry of Fisheries, was designed to equip community members with a sound understanding of relevant legislation, including the Fisheries Act and associated regulations. The program also emphasized standard operating procedures for enforcement, documentation protocols, and mechanisms for reporting to relevant authorities. This foundational knowledge enables community Fish Wardens to conduct lawful patrols, identify breaches, and escalate incidents through official channels.

Following a participatory consultation process, each district established an Enforcement and Compliance group under the District Natural Resource Management Committees. These bodies are responsible for overseeing local enforcement activities and coordinating responses with government agencies. A 1-day workshop was convened to formalize these structures, clarify roles and responsibilities, and develop community-specific enforcement plans.

Initial patrols in Nakorotubu and Bua have already yielded results. Two separate incidents led to the apprehension of individuals engaged in unauthorized fishing activities. One case involved a fisher operating without the required permits in Nakorotubu waters, while another involved a licensed fisher violating the terms of their licence by fishing in non-consented areas in Bua. Both cases were processed and submitted to the Ministry of Fisheries for investigation and action. These enforcement successes have generated strong community awareness and deterrence effects. Word of the apprehensions spread rapidly, enhancing the effectiveness of the patrols and reinforcing community resolve to protect their marine resources.

Community leaders have expressed strong support for the initiative. A Nakorotubu elder said: “I want to see the restoration of the Nakorotubu fisheries resources to how they were when I was young and ensure sustainable fishing methods are used at all times.” Similarly, Bua High Chief Ramakutu Nagagavoka emphasized the collective responsibility of the community -

“I want the Bua fishing grounds to be prosperous and healthy. Our communities must work together, even if it means holding our own villagers accountable through community patrols.”

Bua High Chief Ramakutu Nagagavoka

By combining Traditional Knowledge, local engagement, and practical support, Fijian communities are building climate resilience in their own way and demonstrating how protecting the environment can go hand in hand with securing sustainable livelihoods.

Adapting to the impacts of climate change requires changing behaviour on an individual and a collective level—from how households make a living to how communities manage ecosystems, as well as how governments make investments. So why do we ignore the factors that drive how, when, and why people make decisions as we’re designing and implementing climate change adaptation solutions? IISD and Rare’s new report illustrates how behavioural science can help to question and reframe our assumptions about people’s decision making while supporting us in designing interventions that are grounded in a greater understanding of the psychological, social, and structural drivers of human actions. 

The Challenge of Understanding People 

Several factors prevent countries from implementing and accelerating climate change adaptation solutions. Lack of financial resources and the uncertainties associated with future climate risks are just two of them. But these aren’t the only barriers. Specifically, the psychological and socio-cultural drivers of behaviour are often left unaddressed.  

Scientific bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its Assessment Report Six (IPCC, 2022), recognize the importance of understanding the behavioural dimensions of climate change adaptation. However, in practice, the psychological and socio-cultural factors that influence the adoption of climate change adaptation solutions are often under-researched or ignored.    

This is a major hurdle, considering that adapting to the impacts of climate change requires changing behaviour on both an individual and a collective level—from how households make a living to how communities manage their ecosystems, as well as how governments make investments.   

Tackling behaviour directly can feel quite complex. First, various historical, politico-economic, socio-cultural, and psychological factors can shape people’s decision-making processes.  

Second, people’s actions are situated within a decision-making system comprised of multiple actors, including governments, development partners, civil society organizations, the private sector, communities, and individuals—all facing unique incentives.  

Third, our understanding of how people make decisions is often based on assumptions, which leads to ineffective interventions.  

Conscious and unconscious processes—such as habits, emotions, biases, and social influence—impact people’s decisions. This means that even when people understand the relevance of a specific solution and shift their attitudes or intentions toward it, this often is not enough for them to adopt the solution.  

Most interventions designed to change behaviour tend to overlook such insights, so applying behavioural science to the design and implementation of climate change adaptation initiatives could help us address past failings and improve the acceptability, effectiveness, and sustainability of solutions. 

Case Study on Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Fiji 

To pilot and apply a behavioural science lens to a climate change adaptation solution, we focused on a past ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) project implemented by the Fijian government. 

EbA, also called nature-based solutions for adaptation, is an approach for adjusting to the impacts of climate change that focuses on protecting, restoring, and enhancing ecosystem services, all while improving communities’ well-being. The Fijian government is seen as a leader on this topic because it recognizes the need to prioritize EbA in key strategic policy documents. 

Between 2019 and 2020, the Fijian government implemented a project that supported communities vulnerable to riverine erosion and flooding by giving them vetiver grass to plant along the riverbanks. Vetiver is a non-invasive species of grass with a fast-growing and deep root system that helps stabilize the soil. It is a robust solution to manage climate uncertainties because of its tolerance to both prolonged drought and waterlogging.  

The government deployed a one-off intervention in the villages that did three things: i) they provided free vetiver seedlings through a new vetiver grass nursery at the provincial level; ii) they provided payment for ecosystem services, meaning that each village—through existing community groups—got paid to collectively plant vetiver along the riverbank; and iii) government officials hosted awareness-raising sessions on vetiver planting targeted at men and young people. 

However, in 2023, 3 years after the communities had planted the seedlings, there had been no maintenance of the vetiver along the riverbanks in any of the villages.  

Our research, therefore, sought to explore the behavioural variables that could have contributed to (or impeded) the adoption of vetiver as an erosion-reducing practice among target communities. We selected three rural Indigenous Fijian communities that benefited from this project and a fourth one that did not receive support as a comparison site.  

Six Main Drivers of Adoption 

Our research found that the key drivers influencing vetiver grass adoption for riverbank rehabilitation in selected communities in Fiji are complex but identifiable.  

Many factors likely influence decision making around vetiver grass adoption at the household and community levels. Our analysis revealed that the six main drivers influencing the adoption (or non-adoption) of vetiver grass for riverbank erosion control against flooding were 

• salience of loss: whether villagers feel strongly about the negative impacts that erosion and flooding have on their lives 

• choice uncertainty: whether villagers are certain about the options available to them to reduce erosion 

• outcome efficacy: whether villagers feel vetiver grass will successfully reduce erosion 

• collective efficacy: whether villagers feel their community can plant and maintain vetiver to reduce erosion 

• self-efficacy: whether villagers feel they personally can successfully plant and maintain vetiver grass to reduce erosion 

• material access: whether villagers feel they can easily access and afford vetiver 

We found that together, these drivers worked in concert to push and pull decision-makers toward or away from adopting and maintaining vetiver grass. 

Each of these variables was identified from the data and further broken down into its constituent factors. The first two examples listed are salience of loss and choice uncertainty.  

Salience of loss refers to the emotional and cognitive responses individuals had toward flood risks and riverbank erosion. When discussing vetiver, several aspects repeatedly surfaced. Participants frequently mentioned experience with flooding and erosion, noting that riverine erosion and flooding seemed to be becoming more frequent and intense. One respondent noted, “The floods have become more often than normal [and] more intense, and the currents are way more swift and bold now that it eats away at our riverbanks every time it floods.” 

Another said, "We are very concerned that our village is going to be washed off one day. Flooding is occurring more regularly now as the river has become shallow and wider in some places where erosions have happened. The erosion keeps moving inland; we are concerned that one day it is going to take away houses too." 

These comments tied into the emotional salience of flooding, which was also a recurring theme. Participants expressed strong negative emotion related to the impact of riverine erosion and flooding on their lives and those of others.  

What was particularly striking was the way participants referred to the loss of land as a direct dilution of their cultural identity. Their attachment to place was obvious, with respondents' cultural identity being closely linked to their land, including the riverbank, heightening their concern about erosion.  

Choice uncertainty involved the perceived lack of clear information about the options available for reducing flood risks. Participants often wondered what other solutions might be available for the community to use. This uncertainty can diminish people’s sense of agency, and respondents felt they lacked information about the choice set available to them and their outcomes. Community members weren’t clear on all the options at hand to help fight erosion or how these options compared to one another—or even to doing nothing. As one participant said, "We want to continue with vetiver but also want to know what other interventions are out there that we can probably choose from." 

In scenarios where such decisions could reduce farming land’s immediate potential, combined with our human propensity for preferring known, predictable risks over unknown, ambiguous ones, this uncertainty could be particularly problematic.  

The semi-structured interviews revealed that approximately 43% of respondents expressed uncertainty regarding the relative effectiveness of both hard and natural infrastructure. Opinions were evenly split on whether natural infrastructure like vetiver is more effective than hard infrastructure like walls. It was the same with the benefits of vetiver, with only half of respondents (48%) believing that planting vetiver would benefit them personally. Qualitatively, respondents also noted a perceived lack of relevant information on vetiver itself, with comments such as, "[We've received] no trainings/awareness on vetiver grass and its benefits," and "We've heard about it during the community planting program but there was no training or awareness done."  

Trust in authorities was another recurring theme, particularly related to how much faith villagers put in key messengers and their information. 

For a further breakdown of the other variables, you can read our full report here.

Lessons in Addressing Climate Change Adaptation by Understanding People  

This case study illustrates how behavioural science can help to question and reframe our assumptions about people’s decision making and support us in designing interventions that are grounded in a greater understanding of the psychological, social, and structural drivers of human actions. 

Behavioural science research shows that a combination of interventions addressing multiple drivers is often required to drive and sustain collective action, and a singular intervention is unlikely to address all variables driving decision making at the household and community levels. 

This means that while each of the six drivers is important to support vetiver grass adoption, addressing each variable in a siloed manner will likely not be sufficient to bring sustained change.  

In this case, the Fijian government and development partners need to craft interventions that specifically target and address the drivers of vetiver grass adoption identified through research, rather than relying on the assumptions that we all too often fall prey to, for example, that more information will lead to behaviour change. In doing so, they can then test and validate whether those interventions lead to the psychological, social, or structural changes predicted to result in greater adoption (and to identify how a change in a specific driver influences behaviour downstream). 

More broadly, expanding the application of behavioural science into the realm of climate change adaptation calls for establishing new partnerships between climate change adaptation experts and behavioural scientists.  

Behavioural scientists are already engaging in many fruitful areas of collaboration, such as on financial, public health, and food choice decision making.

This is alongside real and considered community engagement, which is essential to understanding current behaviour and what it means for enhancing resilience and consideration of the adoption of EbA solutions within the broader context of climate change adaptation and development. In this case, the focus on vetiver adoption at the local level should not overlook the broader and more systemic issues that are causing riverbank erosion, likely driven by unsustainable development such as deforestation, poor road drainage systems, and gravel extraction from the riverbed. Climate change is exacerbating the negative impacts of these factors on communities that are dependent on riverine ecosystems for their livelihoods, and focusing solely on changing behaviour at the household and community levels is not enough to effectively address climate change adaptation.  

Finally, applying behavioural science can feel fairly resource intensive, and identifying ways to make this cost-benefit ratio relevant to policy-makers might be necessary if we are to scale climate change adaptation solutions more globally. Understanding current behaviour, and what determines behaviour, often requires collecting and analyzing multiple rounds of primary data at the household and community levels. However, this approach is likely a lot less costly than having an intervention not work, as it’s clear that failure to properly engage with communities in understanding and testing the factors that influence their climate change adaptation behaviour can backfire.