South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010

The Influence of Environmental Changes on the Micronesian Area:a Case Study of Islands in Pohnpei State, Federated Statesof Micronesia
KAWAI Kei１, KUWAHARA Sueo２ ＊ , ONJO Michio３, NODA Shinichi１, NISHIMURA Akira２,
TOMINAGA Shigeto１, ３, NAGASHIMA Shunsuke１
1: Research Center for the Pacific Islands, Kagoshima University,
2: Faculty of Law, Economics and Humanities, Kagoshima University,
3: Faculty of Agriculture, Kagoshima University,*Corresponding author: kuwahara@leh.kagoshima-u.ac.jp

Abstract
Various environmental changes, such as globalization and global warming, have been thought of asimportant factors that affect local communities and natural environments worldwide. This study focuseson three islands (Pohnpei, Mokil, and Pingelap) in Pohnpei State (one of the four Federated States ofMicronesia) and discusses the influence of globalization and global warming on those islands with reference
to data developed from observation of the coral reefs and from a questionnaire on food, life-style, local
awareness of globalization and global warming, and their effects on the human and natural environments.
Based on the results of the survey, this study tries to verify two hypotheses. The first is a “centre-periphery”
hypothesis that focuses on the distance between each island and Guam, the developed core (or centre)of the Micronesian region. The “centre-periphery” hypothesis argues that the closer the islands are to an
urban center, the more globalized they become; islands that are farther away from the center remain more
traditional. The second hypothesis we examined assumes that the effects of global warming on each island
are similar in intensity.
The results of our research show that meaningful “centre-periphery” differences exist among thethree islands with regards to principal diet. A meaningful correlation can be seen between those islands
closer to the center and the consumption of processed foodstuff; in short, the closer an island is to thecentre, the more processed foodstuff its residents consume. In general, responses to the questionnaire
reveal results that are compatible with the “centre-periphery” hypotheses. There are also results that run
counter to the hypotheses we tested. For example, the degree of coral cover on the islands’ reefs differ; thissuggests that the hypothesis about the similar intensity of global warming on all islands is not correct. We
also discuss which factors have most affected the islands, and we offer an interpretation from an islandcentered viewpoint that includes topics such as food, communication, and the natural environment in theMicronesian islands.
Key Words: centre-periphery hypothesis, globalization, global warming interdisciplinary, questionnaire

Received: 10 December 2009
Accepted: 24 January 29 2010

24

South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010

Introduction
Various environmental changes, such as globalization and global warming, areaffecting people’s lives on this planet in many significant ways. Because of their small
size and delicate ecology, islands are especially affected by such large processes. For
example, global warming leads to temperature increases which cause the seas to rise.
Low lying lands, such as an atoll which is made of coral, is particularly vulnerable to arise in sea level. There are many low lying islands and atolls in the Pacific. It has beenreported that many may sink below the surface of the water due to global warming(e.g. IPCC 2007). The El Nino effect related to climate change was studied from1997 to 1998 in the Pacific Ocean area; results of that study showed that it affected
the ecosystem, the production of crops, and other environmentally related areas (e.g.
DREXLER & EWEL 2001). The increased incidence of typhoons is another consequenceof the climate change. Typhoon SUDAL, for example, affected local communities andpeople’s health in Yap State in the FSM (e.g. NAKAJIMA & OHASHI 2004, DURAND et
al. 2005). Meanwhile, it has been reported that the transition from eating traditional
foods to processed foods due to globalization causes people to be obese (EVANS et al.
2001, HUGHES & LAWRENCE 2005, CASSELS 2006). Globalization has also affectednatural environments in a variety of ways. For instance, the expanded movement ofplant and animal life promoted by globalization increases the number of alien species
on islands (e.g. ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY of JAPAN 2002). Because of the complexity ofsocial and natural environments, it is important to understand the impact of changes onthem through a focus on human beings’ adaptation to these changes and their efforts tomaintain their social environment.
Before getting down to specific cases, we offer some general information on
the main crops that have long been the staple diet of Micronesian people, especially
focused on our research area, and also on the centre-periphery theory which provides
the main framework of our analysis.
In the Federated States of Micronesia, the main crops cultivated are yam, taro
and breadfruit. On the high island of Pohnpei, giant swamp taro, which is a variety of
taro, and yam are mainly cultivated. Giant swamp taro is also grown on the atolls ofPingelap and Mokil, but the cultivation of yam is difficult on the atolls because the soil
there is alkaline in quality. Breadfruit is cultivated on all three islands. On Pohnpei,
yams have significant ritual and feasting value, more so than other kinds of food.
Therefore, the bigger tubers are more highly prized. For giant swamp taro cultivation,
swamps with fresh water are necessary. The cultivation generally begins with theconstruction of a swamp or taro patch. Though several years are needed for the patch
to mature, harvesting itself eventually becomes possible all year round, and the sizeof corms tends to increase year by year. After planting, the rest of the cultivation
process for taro is relatively simple. Weeding and fresh water irrigation are required
two or three times a year; that’s all. On Pohnpei, taro patches are dispersed aroundKAWAI et al.: The Influence of Environmental Changes on the Micronesian Area25

the island, while on Pingelap and Mokil, the patches are located in one place near thecenter area of the atolls. Fermented food called “mar” is made from breadfruit, and canbe preserved and stored for several years. Since food supply from the outside is very
unstable on the two atolls, it is important for the islanders to utilize giant swamp taro
and mar throughout the year.
With regards to the centre-periphery theory, the model has been used to date asa framework of analysis in various ways and on different scales (e.g. YAMAGUCHI
1975, GHOSH-SCHELLHORN 2006, APPADURAI 2008). The centre-periphery theory has
been used in conjunction with other approaches such as diffusionism, subordination
theory, and World Systems theory. Diffusionism explains that if the same socio-cultural
phenomena are found in distant places, it is because they are transmitted there from acommon center. Thus, the shared phenomena can be understood as originating from thecenter to the peripheral areas.
Subordination theory developed as a critical response to the modernization theory;
it argues that the transmission of the rational mind of the West into non-Western
societies makes possible the modernization of the latter along lines of development
very similar to the West. The relationship between the West and the non-West is basedon the centre-periphery axis. The center continues to survive by exploiting the nonWest, and the relationship between them does not change.
Immanuel Wallerstein has analyzed the global division of labor as a function of
the modern economic World System in which core and periphery relationships are
predicated on European colonial expansion arising from historical crises. Europe
is posited as the core and its colonies as the periphery (WALLERSTEIN 1974). The
theoretical precondition of World System analysis is subordination theory whichassumes global cohesiveness and the applicability of the centre-periphery relationship.
Today’s globalization can also be understood within the framework of thecentre-periphery model. At first, globalization was seen as the phenomena resulting
from the establishment of world simultaneity and rapid standardization by such
multinational corporations as McDonalds (RITZER 1996). Then, with the demise of
the communist block, globalization was gradually thought of as the consequenceof world standardization with the US as the center and the rest of the world as its
periphery in the fields of politics, economics, culture, and military relations (NAKAJIMA
2006). Thus, using both subordination and World System theories, it is possible to see
the phenomena of globalization as a dominant-subordinate relationship in terms of
economics, culture and information flows between a strong center such as the UnitedStates and the periphery which consists of all other countries.
The ‘centre-periphery’ theory thus proposes that new attitudes and values are firstdeveloped at the social center and then spread towards the social periphery (GHOSHSCHELLHORN 2006). Our use of the centre-periphery model is based in part on thediscussion provided above; however, we also try to reinterpret the centre-peripherytheory from the viewpoint of island and atoll peoples. We focus on how influential thecommercial products, information, and values are for them rather than on the strength26South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010of the dominant-subordinate relationship in which they find themselves.
Thus, this study tries to explain the results of our research into the aforementioned two hypotheses through observation and the use of a questionnaire. We
examine the “centre-periphery” hypothesis by considering the distance between eachof the three islands and Guam, the urban center of the Micronesian region (Fig.1). The
first hypothesis is that the closer the islands are to an urban center, the more globalized
they become, and the farther away they are, the more traditional they remain. Thissuggests that Pohnpei is more globalized because it is closer to the urban center ofGuam, while Pingelap is the farthest from Guam of all three islands and is thus themore traditional. In terms of distance from Guam, Mokil falls between Pohnpei andPingelap; we need to explain more about the implications of being in this middle orintermediate space. The second hypothesis is that the impact of global warming oneach island is similar in intensity (Fig.1). Therefore, this research seeks;1） to study
how globalization and global warming have affected local communities and naturalenvironments on the three islands in Pohnpei State, and 2) to verify the two hypotheses
which are both related to socio-cultural and environmental changes.
Influence of globalization
City (Guam)

IslandIslandIslandGlobal warming
Influence of global
warming

Fig. 1. The two hypotheses tested in this research. One hypothesis deals with the “centre-periphery”
hypothesis which considers the distance between each island and Guam, the developed urban core(or centre) of the Micronesian region. The hypotheses stipulates that the closer the islands are toan urban center, the more globalized they are; islands farther away from the center remain more
traditional. The second hypothesis tested is that the effects of global warming on each island aresimilar in intensity. The width of the arrows shows the degree of influence of globalization andglobal warming.

KAWAI et al.: The Influence of Environmental Changes on the Micronesian Area

27

Methods
Our research was conducted on the island of Pohnpei and the atolls of Mokil andPingelap, all three of which lie within Pohnpei State which is a part of the Federated
States of Micronesia. The time frame for the study was from the 10th to the 28th ofNovember 2008 (Fig.2). We asked dozens of selected household members on eachisland to answer a questionnaire (Appendix 1) with the assistance of local counterparts.
The household survey included questions on general and family background, meals anddrinks, life style, and anxiety in everyday life.
In addition to the questionnaire, we carried out research on the naturalenvironment. The ecology of coral atolls is influenced by many environmental factors
which in turn are affected by global warming. This includes increases in temperature,
the greater prevalence of large storms such as typhoons, and the El Nino effect and soon. The degree of coral cover on and around an atoll and its reef is a good indicator of
the influence of global warming. To study this influence, we measured the degree ofcoral cover on the shore and reef areas of the three islands. On Pingelap and Mokil, tensites were selected in the shallows facing the open sea, while on Pohnpei we worked
along lagoon areas. During high tide, ten pictures were taken at each site from the sea
surface. The degree of coral cover within each picture was measured in the laboratory
and average values were calculated. All data (questionnaire and field observation) was
statistically analyzed by one way ANOVA and Bonferroni test by SPSS (version 11).

Fig. 2. A map showing the research area: Pohnpei Island, and Pingelap and Mokil Atolls, Federated Statesof Micronesia.

Results
Basic data about sample
The number of householders on each island who answered the questionnaire was
between 30 and 50 people, and the average age of the respondents was between 40
and 50 years old (Fig. 3). All identified themselves as Christians. Men accounted for28South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010

Fig. 3. Basic data from the household questionnaire used on Pohnpei, Pingelap, and Mokil: sample number,average age, percentage of male respondents, and the percentage of respondents who identified
themselves as Christians in answering the questionnaire.

approximately 50% of the questionnaire respondents on Pohnpei; male participation in
the questionnaire was higher for both Pingelap and Mokil.
Modern and traditional foodFigure 4 shows how many times in one week people on the three islands ate a
traditional diet, identified here as swamp taro, taro, breadfruit, and fresh fish. As aresult, the average daily consumption of swamp taro and fresh fish on Pohnpei which
is closest to Guam was significantly lower than that on Mokil and Pingelap (One way
ANOVA, P < 0.05). This seems to confirm that islands closer to an urban center (Guam)are becoming more globalized. However, the average daily consumption for taro andbreadfruit was not significantly different among the three islands (One way ANOVA, P>0.05.)
Figure 5 shows how many times in one week people on the three islands ate more
modern food, indentified here as rice, ramen, bread, canned meat, and canned fish.
Average daily consumption of ramen (One way ANOVA, P < 0.05), bread (One way
ANOVA, P < 0.001), and canned meat (One way ANOVA, P < 0.001) on Pohnpei
were significantly higher than on Pingelap. This suggests that islands closer to an

KAWAI et al.: The Influence of Environmental Changes on the Micronesian Area

29

Fig. 4. Average weekly consumption of traditional food (swamp taro, taro, breadfruit, and fresh fish) on
Pohnpei, Pingelap, and Mokil. Vertical bars at the top of columns show the standard error for such asample. Ns: not significant difference.

Fig. 5. Average weekly consumption of modern food (rice, ramen, bread, canned meat, and canned fish) on
Pohnpei, Pingelap, and Mokil. Vertical bars at the top of columns bars the show standard error.

urban center are more globalized. Average consumption frequencies of canned fish on
Pingelap and Pohnpei were significantly higher than that on Mokil (One way ANOVA,P < 0.001). This also suggests islands closer to an urban center are more globalized.
However, consumption frequencies for rice on the three islands were relatively highcompared with other modern food, and the frequency of rice consumption on Pingelap
and Pohnpei was significantly lower than that on Mokil (One way ANOVA, P < 0.05).

30

South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010

This figure indicates that the respondents on the three islands consumed
meat (frozen fish, beef, pork, and chicken) several times a week (Fig. 6). Average
consumption frequencies of frozen fish and beef on Pohnpei were significantly higher
than those on Pingelap and Mokil (One way ANOVA, P < 0.001). At the same time, theaverage daily consumption of pork and chicken on Pingelap was significantly lower
than on Pohnpei and Mokil (One way ANOVA, P < 0.05). The data here again suggeststhat the closer the islands are to an urban center, the more globalized they become.

Fig. 6. Average weekly consumption of meat (frozen fish, beef, pork, and chicken) on Pohnpei, Pingelap,
and Mokil. Vertical bars show the standard error.

Fig. 7. Percentage of people on each island consuming either traditional or new drinks on Pohnpei,
Pingelap, and Mokil. Traditional drinks include water and coconut juice. New drinks include storebought beverages and mineral water.

KAWAI et al.: The Influence of Environmental Changes on the Micronesian Area

31

Figure 7 shows the percentage of people on each island who were consuming
traditional as opposed to modern drinks. The percentage of new or modern beverages
being consumed on Pohnpei was high; conversely but not surprisingly, the percentageof traditional drink consumption on more distant Pingelap was also very high. Again,
the evidence here seems to affirm the centre-periphery hypothesis that islands closer tothe urban center are more globalized in their dietary patterns.
Electrical equipment and communication
Household possession of electrical equipment (refrigerators, radios, TVs, andDVDs) registered high on Pohnpei, and appears to be a feature of life that attracts
people from the more remote islands (Fig. 8). Electronic communications equipment(mobile phones, newspapers, and the internet) was in use only on Pohnpei; access toelectronic communications equipment paralleled the household possession figures
for electrical equipment. To use this sophisticated equipment, state governments needto invest in plants and other related infrastructure; this is very expensive, especiallyfor people on Mokil and Pingelap. On these two atolls, mail is still the dominantcommunication tool; on Pohnpei, reliance on mail as a medium of communication is
low compared to the two atolls.

Fig. 8. Percentage of households possessing electrical equipment (refrigerator, radio, TV, and DVDs ) on
Pohnpei, Pingelap, and Mokil. The right bar shows the number of pieces of mail per month received
on each island.

Coral cover in coastal area
The percentage of coral cover on Pohnpei was significantly higher than that on
Mokil and Pingelap (One way ANOVA, P < 0.001) (Fig. 9).

32South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010

Fig. 9. Percentage of coral cover in studied areas on Pohnpei, Pingelap, and Mokil. Vertical bars at the topof columns bar shows the standard error.

Awareness of globalization and global warming
As indicated by the household questionnaire, people on the three islands worried
very much about the influence of global warming on their communities. Concern about
the increased frequency and amount of heavy rainfall was of significantly greater
concern on Pohnpei than on Mokil and Pingelap where scarcity of fresh water ismuch more of a threat (One way ANOVA, P < 0.05) (Fig. 10). Worry about typhoons,sea winds, drought, and their effects on fishing and agricultural activities proved
significantly lower on Mokil than on Pohnpei and Pingelap (One way ANOVA, P <0.05).
The household survey revealed that people on all three islands worried a great deal
about the influence of globalization on their lives. There were no significant differencesamong the three islands (Fig. 11).

Fig.10. Average values in the awareness of increased typhoons, sea winds, sea surges, droughts, heavy
rains, and of the effects of these climate changes on fishing and agricultural activities, and social
infrastructure; １: very very worried, 2: very worried, 3: worried, 4: not so worried, 5: not at all.

KAWAI et al.: The Influence of Environmental Changes on the Micronesian Area

33

Fig.11. Average values in the concern for loss of traditional customs, the weakening of community
consciousness, and disturbances to the social order related to globalization; １: very very worried, 2:very worried, 3: worried, 4: not so worried, 5: not at all.

Fig.12. Average values in the consciousness of the effects of outside information, imported food, imported
goods, human waste disposal, dependency on money, and increased prices on the local island
community; 1: very very worried, 2: very worried, 3: worried, 4: not so worried, 5: not at all.

Our survey revealed that community awareness about the impact of globalizationon the disposal of human waste was significantly higher on Pingelap than on Mokil(One way ANOVA, P < 0.05) (Fig. 12). The household survey also showed that people
on Pohnpei and Pingelap worried more about the effects of outside information andimported goods on their islands than those on Mokil (One way ANOVA, P < 0.05).

34

South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010

Discussion
Hypothesis on global warming
Our investigation shows that there is a difference in the extent to which the coral
cover on the three islands is affected by global warming. Thus, the hypothesis that theeffects of global warming have similar intensity on island environments is not correct.
To explain this finding, we offer two possible explanations.
First, weather phenomena resulting from global warming vary among islands
and atolls; the impact of these varying weather phenomena on local environments also
differ. El Nino and the increased frequency and intensity of typhoons are considered tobe related to global warming. A study of El Nino in the Federated States of Micronesia
from 1997 to 1998 found that its effects varied among the different islands and islandgroups (DREXLER & EWEL 2001). Typhoon “Sudal” hit Yap State in April 2004 andwith devastating consequences for the local population and the natural environment.
Generally the incidence and intensity of typhoons varies from area to area.
Secondly, the difference in the environmental factors affecting the growth ofcoral needs to be considered carefully. On Pingelap and Mokil atolls, our investigation
focused on shallow areas facing the open the sea. On Pohnpei, we conducted our
research around lagoon areas. In addition, environmental factors such as sunlight,
temperature, and water depth vary from island to island, and thus have different
effects on the growth of coral (e.g. GULKO 1998). Moreover, the effects of different
environmental destruction and pollution may affect the growth of coral as well.
In this study, the degree of coral cover for each island was the only indicator used
to test the hypothesis that global warming’s effects are of similar kind and intensity
on all islands. As global warming is affecting many aspects of the natural and social
environments (IPCC 2007), this hypothesis must be further tested on the varietyof activities taking place in these different environments. Therefore, more detailed
research on this topic is desirable, even necessary.
Hypothesis on globalization
We did a field survey on the consumption of both traditional foods (such as
swamp-taro, taro, breadfruit, fresh fish and coconut juice) and modern foods (such as
rice, ramen, bread, canned meat and fish, frozen meat and fish, and soft drinks), andelectrical equipment and communication. With regards to electrical equipment andcommunication, and foods other than rice, we found that the closer an island is to an
urban center, the more the islanders consume modern foods, and the more they use or
rely upon electrical equipment and communication. Conversely, the farther away anisland is from an urban center, its inhabitants rely more on traditional foods and lesson electrical equipment and communication. In general, our study validates the centreperiphery theory on the consumption of modern versus local or traditional food.
With regards to rice, however, the varying distances from Guam did not show any
meaningful difference in consumption; rather it showed an equally high consumption

KAWAI et al.: The Influence of Environmental Changes on the Micronesian Area

35

of rice among the three islands. Here, our research findings again challenge the centreperiphery hypothesis. There can be several reasons for the exception rice poses to thecentre-periphery hypothesis. Unlike traditional foods such as taro and yam, rice canbe easily stored for long periods of time. The cost of rice is also comparatively cheap.
Thus, neither cost nor distance is an impediment to consumption on any of the threeislands we studied. As a result, the consumption of rice has become widespread among
all the islands despite the projections to the contrary advanced by the centre-peripherythesis.
Consciousness for environmental changes
Our survey shows that people on the three islands are deeply worried about the
impact of environmental change on their island societies and natural environments.
With regards to heavy rainfall, people on the islands of Mokil and Pingelap are notas worried as those on Pohnpei. Pohnpei Island has a lot of rain because of its highmountains (annual average about 1000cm: Lander and Khosrowpanah 2004), while
there is less rainfall on Mokil (annual average about 380cm: personal data) and
Pingelap because they are atolls. For this reason, people on the atolls are not worried
about the damages caused by heavy rainfall; on the contrary, they desire more rain
because of the difficulty in securing and maintaining adequate levels of drinking wateron their islands. Thus, their need for drinking water removes any concerns about thenegative consequences of increased heavy rainfall.
The results of our research also support the centre-periphery hypothesis interms of general food consumption and the use of electrical and electronic forms ofcommunication. Pohnpei shows urbanization under the influence of globalization,
while Pingelap is less globalized and remains more traditional in terms of its social
system. These circumstances affect the kinds of food they consume and the methods
they use to communicate. In contrast to these poles of development, Mokil still partly
maintains a traditional social system but locates itself in-between the other two islands
by showing a great deal of global influence as well. However, as we noted above, ourawareness survey on the effects of global warming and globalization shows a very
different result than that posited by the centre-periphery thesis.
Pohnpei and Pingelap are stable with ongoing modernization for the former andwith a continuing traditional social system for the latter, while Mokil Island is in atransitional phase from a traditional to modern social system. Thus, Mokil seems to be
still partly maintaining a traditional social system while, at the same time, under thestrong influence of globalization. That is, Mokil is located on the boundary between
modernization and tradition which explains why the people there feel less secure(see the figures 10 and 12). Anthropologically, the case of Mokil is relevant to theboundary theory of Edmund Leach (LEACH 1976). According to Leach’s theory, apeople of peripheral area far from a center occupy a very ambiguous position in termsof cultural identity. This ambiguity causes uncertainty and insecure feelings among thepeople. Mokil’s transitional position between center and periphery and also between

36South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010

modernized and traditional social systems seems to put the island and the islanders ina unique situation that is not simply or easily explained by centre-periphery theory, butrather requires the help of boundary theory.

Acknowledgements
This research was founded by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research JSPS (Fundnumber: 19510254). We are grateful to D. Hanlon for his editorial assistance with anearlier version of this manuscript. We also thank S. Hamada, K. Kimura, M. Etoka, andpeople in Pohnpei, Mokil, and Pingelap for kind help in the research.

References
APPADURAI, A. 1986. Theory in anthropology: Center and Periphery, Comparative
Studies in Society and History, 28, 2: 356-361.
CASSELS, S. 2006. Overweight in the Pacific links between foreign dependence, global
food trade, and obesity in the Federate States of Micronesia. Globalization and
Health 2: 1-8.
DREXLER, J.Z. and EWEL K.C. 2001. Effect of the 1997-1998 ENSO-related drought onhydrology and salinity in a Micronesian wetland complex. Estuaries 24: 347-356.
DURAND, M.A., BEL, M., RUWEY, I., MARFEL, M., YUG, L. and NGADEN, V. ２００５. An
outbreak of dengue fever in Yap State. Pacific Health Surveillance and Response.
12: 99-102
ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY of JAPAN 2002. Handbook of alien species in Japan. 390pp,
Chijinshokan, Japan.
EVANCE, M., SINCLAIR, R.C., FUSIMALOHI, C. & Liava’a V. 2001. Globalization, diet,and health: an example from Tonga. Bull. World Health Organ. 79: 856-862.
GHOSH-SCHELLHORN, M., (with ALEXANDER, V.) ed., 2006. Peripheral centres, central
peripheries: India and its diaspora(s), Transcultural Anglophone Studies Vol.1,
LIT, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
GULKO, D. 1998. Hawaiian coral reef ecology. 245pp., Mutual Publishing, Hawaii.
HUGHES, R.G. & LAWRENCE, M. 2005. Globalisation, food and health in Pacific island
countries. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 14: 298-306.
IPCC 2007. Climate change ２００７―The physical science basis: working group I
contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. 1008pp, Cambridge
University Press.
LANDER, M. A. & KHOSROWPANAH, S. 2004. A rainfall climatology for Pohnpei Island
the Federated States of Micronesia. Technical report No. 103.
LEACH, E., 1976. Culture and communication, London: Cambridge University Press.
NAKAJIMA, N., 2003. Gurobarizashon no naka no Bunkajinruigaku An-nai (Introduction

KAWAI et al.: The Influence of Environmental Changes on the Micronesian Area37

of cultural anthropology in globalization), Tokyo: Akashi Shoten. [in Japanese]
NAKAJIMA, H & OHASHI, 2004. Typhoon Sudal hit Yap in April 2004. Journal of the
Pacific Society. 93: 6-7. [in Japanese]
RITZER, G., 1996. The McDonaldization of society, revised edition, London: Pine Forge
Press.
W ADE , R., 1980. Centre-periphery as a concept for the study of the socialtransformation of Turkey, Grillo, R.D. ed.,“Nation” and “state” in Europe:
anthropological perspectives, London ; New York : Academic Press.
WALLERSTEIN, I., 1974. The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and theorigins of the European world-economy, 1600-1750, New York: Academic Press.
YAMAGUCHI, M. 1975. Bunka To Ryougisei (Culture and Ambiguity), Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten. [in Japanese]38South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010

Appendix
Questionnaire
General and Family
1. Gender (preference?) (1)male, (2)female, others ()
2. Age (________ years old)
3. Which island (country) were you born? ()
4. Which island are you living now? ()
5. Which of the following is/are your main source/s of income now?
(1)Agriculture, (2)Fishing, (３)Salary, (4)Pension,(5)Remittances, (6)Others ()
6．　 If you receive remittance/s from which island/s is/are they coming from?
Please indicate the sources from the largest to the smallest amount.
(1)
(2)
(3)
7. a. How many nuclear family members do you have now? ()
b. How many nuclear family members are living in another place? ()
8. a. How many nuclear family members are living in Pohnpei Island? ()
b. How many times do they come back/visit per year? ()
9. a. How many nuclear family members are living in a foreigncountry/countries? ()
b. How many times do they come back/visit per year? ()
10. How many nuclear family members have graduated from high school? (11. How many nuclear family members are younger than high school age? (12. How many nuclear family members have graduated from college(or have attained higher education)? ()
13. Please rate the field of education you think is more profitablefor your village young people to study?
Environmental science: (1)very important, (2)important, (3)not so important
Business and accounting: (1)very important, (2)important, (3)not so important
Information technology: (1)very important, (2)important, (3)not so important
Consumer protection and legal studies:(1)very important, (2)important, (3)not so important
Political science: (1)very important, (2)important, (3)not so important))

KAWAI et al.: The Influence of Environmental Changes on the Micronesian Area

Meals and Drinking
1. How many meals do you eat per day?
(1)One, (2)Two, (3)Three, (4)More than three (meals)
2. a. What kinds of food do you usually eat in every meal? (Multiple responses)(1)Rice, (2)Swamp taro, (3)Taro, (4)Breadfruit,(5)Packaged Ramen/noodles, (6)Bread, (7)Others ()()
b. How many times do you eat these foods (Choose from Q 2a) per week?
Do you buy these foods at stores, markets or from other people?
(Multiple answers)		Times eating
Buying ○ or Not buying×1) Rice
		
(
)		
(
)
2) Swamp taro 		
(
)		
(
)
3) Taro
		
(
)		
(
)
4) Breadfruit
		
(
)		
(
)
5) Packaged Ramen 		
(
)		
(
)
6) Bread 			
(
)		
(
)
7) Others (__________)
(
)		
(
)
Others(__________)
(
)
(
)
		
 　　
(
)		
(
)
 　 Others (__________)
3． a. What kind of side dishes do you take in addition to Q2? (Multiple answers)(1)Fresh fish, (2)Frozen fish, (3)Beef, (4)Pork, (5)Poultry,(6)Canned meat, (7)Canned fish,(8)Others (_____________)(______________)(____________)
　　　　 b. What kind of side dishes do you eat per week in addition to Q2?
(Multiple answers). Do you buy this food from the stores, markets orfrom other people ?
Times eating
Buying ○ or Not buying×							1) Fresh fish 			()()2) Frozen fish 		()()3) Beef		()()4) Pork		()()5) Poultry
		
(
)
(
)
6) Canned meat		()()7) Canned fish			()()8) Others(__________) ()()
Others(__________) ()()
Others(__________) ()()
4. What do you usually drink most? Please choose one from the following.
(1)mineral water (store-bought),(2)beverages <drinks> except water (store-bought),(3)water or drinks (not store-bought),

39

40

South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010

(4)coconut juice
5. Do you use coconuts for drinking or cooking?
Drinking 		
(1)Yes, (2)No
Eating or cooking(1)Yes, (2)No6. Do you drink coconut juice more or less than you had done 5 years ago?
(1)drunk more, (2)almost the same, (3)drunk less
7. How often do you drink alcoholic beverages per week?
(1)almost everyday, (2)about twice or three times a week,(3)about once a week, (4)drinking very little, (5)never drink
8. When do you usually drink alcoholic beverages? Mark all that apply.
(1)on special occasions, (2)routinely,(3)others (Describe in detail:_________________________________)
9. Which alcoholic beverage do you drink often? Mark all that apply.
(1)beer, (2)wine, (3)whisky, (4)palm wine <toddy>(5)others (Describe in detail:__________________________________)
10. Do you drink alcoholic beverages more or less than you had done 5 years ago?
(1)more, (2)almost the same, (3)less
11. Do you have a refrigerator in your house?
(1)Yes, (2)NoLife style
1. Do you have a religion or belong to a church?
(1)Catholic church(2)Protestant denomination(name of the church:_________________________),(3)I follow traditional customs of my island,(4)others (please describe:_____________________________________ ),(5)I have no religion
2. How often do you go to your family (or ancestral) graveyard?
(1)more than twice a week, (2)about once a week,(3)several times a month, (4)several times a year, (5)never
3. (For Christians) How often do you go to church?
(1)more than twice a week, (2)about once a week,(3)several times a month, (4)several times a year, (5)never
4. How many times have you been abroad <to foreign countries>? (________times)(A question to people who have gone abroad) Which places have you been?
1) Pacific Island countries or regions except for Micronesia(Please specify :__________________________________________________)
2) Asian countries (please specify :_______________________________)
3) American countries (please specify:_____________________________)
4) European countries (please specify: ___________________________)
5) Other regions (please specify :_________________________________)

KAWAI et al.: The Influence of Environmental Changes on the Micronesian Area

41

5．　 How many time have you visited at Colonia this year? (_________________)
6．　 What kinds of crops do you plant or cultivate? (Multiple answers)(1)Swamp taro, (2)Upland Taro, (3)Yam, (4)Sweet potato, (5)Tapioca (Cassava),(6)Breadfruit, (7)Others (__________) (___________) (___________),(8)I don’t cultivate any crops
7. What kind of vegetables do you plant or cultivate? (Multiple answers)(1)Tomato, (2)Eggplant, (3)Sweet pepper, (4)Onion,(5)Cabbage, (6)Other leaf vegetables, (7)Pumpkin,(8)Cooking banana, (9)Others (_________) (_________)(_________)(10)I don’t how to grow any vegetables
8. What kind of fruits do you plant or cultivate? (Multiple answers)(1)Citrus, (2)Banana, (3)Mango, (4)Guava,(5)Others (__________)(__________) (__________) (__________),(6)I don’t grow any fruits
9. a. Do you have a radio?
(1)Yes, (2)Nob.(I YES to Q9.a) How many hours do you listen per day? (________)
10. a. Do you have a TV set?
(1)Yes, (2)No    b.(If YES in Ｑ10.a) How many hours do you watch per day? (______)
11. a. Do you have any kind of video player (include DVD)?
(1)Yes, (2)Nob. (If YES to Q11.a) How many hours do you watch per day? (_______)
12. Do you have mobile phone?
(1)Yes, (2)No
13. a. Which type of electricity do you have in your house?
(1)public electricity, (2)generator, (3)no electricity
b. If you have generator, when did you buy it? (________)
c. How many hours do you use the generator? (___________)
14. Do you buy a newspaper everyday?
(1)Yes, (2)No15. How many pieces of mail and parcels do you receive a month? (________)
16. Do you frequently use the internet?
(1)Yes, (2)No

Anxiety in life
Do you worry about changing climate? Please answer by degrees.
1. Typhoon: 		(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,						
(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all
2. Sea wind: 		
(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all						

42

South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010

3. Sea surge: 		(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all						
4. Drought: 		
(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all						
5. Heavy rain:		
(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all						
6. Fishing activity (e.g. decrease in the number of catch, because of coralbleaching)(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,						
(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all						
7. Agricultural activity (e.g. decrease productivity, because of strong wind
and wave):		
(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all						
8. Social infrastructure and traffic problem (e.g. broken road and bridges
and other infrastructures because of strong wind and wave)						
(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,						
(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all
How much anxiety do you feel regarding the following issues? Please answer by degrees.
1. Too much outside information(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all
2. Too much imported food(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all
3. Too many imported goods(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all
4. Too much human waste(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all
5. Dependency on money(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all
6. Increasing prices(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all
7. Loss of traditional customs(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all
8. Weakening of community consciousness(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at allKAWAI et al.: The Influence of Environmental Changes on the Micronesian Area

9. Depopulation(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all
10. Social order disturbances and generational change(1)Very very worried, (2)Very worried, (3)Worried,(4)Not so worried, (5)Not at all

43

44

South Pacific Studies Vol.30, No.2, 2010