PACIFIC DATAVIZ CHALLENGE 2026

The Year We Plan For Does Not Exist

Use history to choose the tests, and local knowledge to choose the response.

I grew up in Aotearoa with a Māori mum and a Samoan dad. For me, the Pacific is not an abstract region on a chart; it is family. This is a personal reading of public data, not a claim to speak for every Samoan community.

Looking at Samoa’s climate record, one question keeps returning: what kind of year are we planning for? The data gives no single answer. It shows why an average year is a poor plan—and why resilience needs more than prediction.

2020 rainfall anomaly+27.3 mmSamoa-wide official indicator
2022 rainfall anomaly−20.7 mmSamoa-wide official indicator
2024 SST anomaly+0.8°CSamoa EEZ aggregate

THE EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What these data can and cannot tell us

They can

  • show conditions national plans should be tested against;
  • reveal reversals hidden by averages;
  • document one history of adaptation after a major crop shock.

They cannot

  • prove that ocean temperature caused a rainfall or crop outcome;
  • predict a particular village, catchment, farm or household impact;
  • choose a locally appropriate response without local evidence and consent.
ACT 1 · THE CONDITIONS TO TEST

The ocean backdrop is warming. Rainfall still refuses to behave like a straight line.

Samoa’s official annual rainfall indicator reversed from above its reference average in 2020 to below it in 2021 and 2022. The EEZ sea-surface-temperature series is shown separately as a long-run contextual signal—not as a cause of that reversal.

Samoa-wide official indicator

A wet-to-dry reversal in three annual readings

1991–2020 baseline

Read this first: +27.3 mm in 2020 became −18.1 mm in 2021 and −20.7 mm in 2022. These are annual Samoa-wide anomalies, not local drought declarations.

Annual precipitation anomaly in millimetres, with reported standard error. Positive and negative values are relative to this dataset’s own baseline.
Samoa EEZ aggregate

The warming ocean is the background condition

1971–2000 baseline

2024: +0.8°C in the EEZ annual series. This is not a coastal or inshore temperature record and is not evidence that SST caused a rainfall outcome.

Annual mean sea-surface-temperature anomaly across Samoa’s Exclusive Economic Zone.
ACT 2 · THE AVERAGE HIDES THE MONTH

A seasonal pattern can be real without making any particular month predictable.

The near-Upolu grid point has a clear wet-to-dry seasonal rhythm. Individual months still depart sharply from that rhythm. Start with an authored episode, then use the controls to test another year and month.

Modelled grid point near central Upolu

The seasonal normal provides orientation—not a forecast

1981–2025 monthly means

The wet season is visible in the long-run monthly means. The heat map below shows why no individual month should be assumed to match that profile.

NASA POWER/MERRA-2 monthly precipitation at −13.83°, −171.75°. This is a modelled grid point, not a rain gauge or Samoa-wide estimate.

PLANNING STRESS TEST

Choose a historical condition worth testing

Presets explain why the date matters. The year and month controls remain available for your own exploration.

SELECTED EPISODE

April 2016 — unusually wet month

What happened

Evidence scope

Planning question

What it cannot determine

Show the monthly profile as
Official Samoa-wide or EEZ indicators

National and ocean context

Samoa rainfall anomaly

—Annual · Samoa-wide · 1991–2020 baseline

Samoa EEZ SST anomaly

—Annual · EEZ aggregate · 1971–2000 baseline
Modelled grid point near central Upolu

April in 2016

Monthly rainfall

—Total · departure from its own calendar-month normal

Food-resilience history

Taro yield in 2016

Reported taro yield

—Annual national/country series · descriptive only
Modelled grid point near central Upolu

Every month compared with its own normal

Blue = wetter · rust = drier

On mobile, use the year and month controls above. The heat map remains available as an overview.

April 2016 is the wettest departure in this 1981–2025 grid-point record (+358 mm); February 1998 is the driest (−211 mm). Those are historical modelled values at one grid point—not local impact reports.

Keyboard: focus the grid once, then use arrow keys to move by month or year; press Enter to load a cell into the explorer. Only one heat-map cell is in the tab order.
ACT 3 · RESILIENCE AFTER SHOCK

Resilience is not knowing the next shock. It is having more than one way to respond.

The 1993 taro-leaf-blight outbreak was a disease crisis, not proof of a climate effect. Its documented response still offers a resilience precedent: broaden diversity, share genetic resources, involve farmers in evaluation and keep adapting.

Food-resilience history

Shock, low point and a long recovery

Annual taro yield · kg/ha

Recorded series: 3,409.1 kg/ha in 1993; 1,500 kg/ha in 1994; 5,000 kg/ha in 2000; 5,574.6 kg/ha in 2024. The line describes yield—it does not attribute causes by itself.

FAO documents the 1993 outbreak and a participatory improvement programme involving farmers, researchers, regional networks and a broader genetic base.

A CURRENT POLICY CONNECTION

More options remain part of Samoa’s adaptation agenda.

Samoa’s NDC 3.0 sets a 2035 target to develop and distribute at least three climate-resilient crop varieties adapted to Samoa’s agro-ecological zones. It also states that adoption requires consent from farmers and commercial and community-based farms.

Read Samoa’s NDC 3.0
ACT 4 · PLAN FOR THE RANGE; DECIDE IN PLACE

National data can identify the tests. Communities help determine the response.

Samoa’s NDC 3.0 says Community Integrated Management plans enable each of Samoa’s 368 villages to identify locally relevant adaptation measures and draw on local knowledge. That is the destination of this story—not a national dashboard pretending to make local decisions.

1

Stress-test national plans

Test wet years, dry years and unusual months—not one average scenario.

2

Match evidence to the decision

National, EEZ and grid-point evidence can frame questions. It cannot replace local observations or judgement.

3

Build adaptive options

Crop diversity, farmer-led trials, community planning, local knowledge and consent are resilience infrastructure.

My family connects me to a Pacific larger than any chart. The data cannot tell a village what choice belongs in its place. It can tell us which conditions our plans must be ready to face.

There is no single year to plan for. There is only the range we prepare for—and the relationships we prepare with.
APPENDIXMethods, data and limitations

Pacific climate context

Pacific climate context

Niño 3.4 is retained here as context only. It is not a Samoa rainfall or taro-causation label.

Forecast-method back-test

The held-out comparison is methodological evidence, not a current forecast.

Monthly distribution mechanics

Each box contains 45 observations for the same calendar month. Box = middle 50%; whiskers = 1.5×IQR; dot = median.

Geographic scope

The locator shows only the disclosed MERRA-2/POWER sample coordinate. It is not a risk map.

Data treatment and limitations

  • Missing values remain missing; they are never converted to zero.
  • Rainfall, SST, taro yield and Niño 3.4 retain separate units, baselines and spatial scopes.
  • No displayed alignment is treated as causal evidence.
  • The seasonal model comparison is retrospective and does not produce an operational outlook.
  • Raw source captures and deterministic transformations are retained in the project repository.

Sources

Accessed and frozen for this review build in August 2026. Dataset-specific reuse terms remain a final submission check.

Development process

This review build uses AI-assisted coding and drafting. The competition rules permit supportive AI use, while requiring the participant’s own creative and analytical judgement. Final narrative, cultural framing, analysis and submission decisions therefore remain explicit human review gates.