Climate change risks such as rising sea-levels, prolonged droughts, and extreme coastal weather events, are devastating for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) where both their homes and livelihoods are highly interdependent upon the ocean. These SIDS have no other viable choice but to adapt to their ever-changing environments and the rising disaster risks compounded by climate change. Although SIDS tend to receive significant attentions for the adverse impacts of climate change, less is known about the place-based adaptation measures as well as people’s lived experiences with sea-level rise, inundation, tropical storms, droughts, and more. Considering the vast area that the SIDS’ nations cover, the type of climate adaptation measures adopted may vary due to the respective country’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity, as some are more comprehensive and effective than others. This study directly responds to the existing gap in our understanding of how different nations within SIDS are prioritizing and strategizing their adaptation measures with the following research questions: “What are key adaptation strategies practiced in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to address impacts of climate change? Are there similarities or differences in the adaptation strategies pursued by SIDS?” This study uses a conceptual framework of disaster risk and climate change adaptation developed by the IPCC AR5 (2014) to systematically review over 107 peer-reviewed journal articles, scientific reports, and a few videos. Using a systematic literature view approach as the primary research method, this study assembled, categorized, and analyzed the national as well as sub-national adaptation measures—social, institutional, and structural--of two representative countries: 1) Kiribati (a small, low-lying island with the higher level of exposure and vulnerability to climate change), and 2) Fiji (the second biggest island in the South Pacific known for bigger economy and “High Islands”). The results of the study suggest that the adopted adaptation measures were reflective of the country’s historical legacy and the existing adaptive capacity. While Kiribati has historically focused more on external migration of displaced people and more recently has prioritized structural adaptation practices (e.g., construction of coastal seawall), Fiji has been able to leverage its bigger economy and technical resources to develop more comprehensive institutional, social, and structural adaptation measures. However, it is also important to recognize that the other internal and external factors, mainly geophysical setting (low elevation of Kiribati vs the high islands of Fiji) also contribute the level of vulnerability these nations face.