 |
|
Introduction
[ A | B | C ]
B. Methodology
Available literature on the history of Suva, its industrial development, and environmental problems and their management was reviewed. As with any current environmental study in Fiji, the State of the Environment Report, 1991 and the National Environment Strategy, 1992, provided an essential background for understanding the different issues involved. A review of recent issues of journals and newspapers was also undertaken in order to ascertain the recent perception of various persons or groups. The letters to the editor columns in the daily newspapers provided a good barometer of public opinion, particularly in urban areas. Policy documents were reviewed, the most important of those being the Draft Sustainable Development Bill.
The next phase was to meet with different government officials to discuss some of the more current problems relating to urban environment, and institutional arrangements and coordination. Meetings were held first with central government officials including the Deputy Permanent Secretary for Housing and Urban Development, the Director of Town and Country Planning, the Director of the Environment and members of their staff. Meetings were then arranged with the Lord Mayor of Suva and the members of his staff. Several field visits with Suva City Council (SCC) health inspectors were undertaken to some industrial sites, particularly those known to be responsible for polluting and littering. Those "front line" field visits were particularly important for undertaking the Anti-Litter Decree case study. The general public and the business sector were also interviewed on certain aspects of the report. The extensive support and cooperation of all those agencies and individuals, at all levels, contributed greatly to the success of this study.
Important sources of published data on Suva and the urban environment of Fiji were provided by the provisional results of the 1996 Census, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Poverty Report, and the Employment Survey of 1993. The Bureau of Statistics, the Transport Control Board, and SCC provided access to unpublished and, in some cases, unprocessed, data. The presentation and analysis of some of those data represent an original contribution by this study.
|
|
|
