Six sections are filled in: the parts that are stable and factual. Four are yours — evidence, perspectives, evaluation and the current connection. Those four are where the marks are, and they are deliberately empty. A case study only counts once you have completed them.
Avoid writing about Tuvalu as though it has already disappeared. Check what is projected against what has happened.
Tuvalu
8.0°S 178.1°E · scale: National
See this case in context on the case study map.
A very small, very low island nation in the Pacific with almost no land above a few metres. Freshwater is limited and easily contaminated by saltwater intrusion.
What is changing here, and the mechanisms driving it.
Find these, and write the year beside every figure. A statistic without a date is not evidence.
Who is affected, and separately, who holds the decision-making power.
Named above as a starting list. For each one, add what they actually want, and note where two of them want incompatible things.
Find two sources that disagree about this case — not two summaries of the same view. Record who each is, what they claim, and what interest they have. A perspective without a holder is not a perspective.
Which of the six apply here, and what each one reveals.
How significant is this? How effective was any response? What are the limitations of your evidence? What else could explain the pattern? Reach a judgement and defend it.
One dated development from the last twelve months. Does it strengthen, weaken or complicate the case as recorded above? Update this every time you revisit the case.
Existential risk, climate justice, and the limits of adaptation.
Reading this page is not the same as having a case study. Take the template, find the evidence, and fill in sections 4, 6, 8 and 9 in your own words.
Start here. Prefer the organisation that produced the data over anyone summarising it.
Links checked 27 August 2026 · external links open in a new tab
← Back to the case map