E ui aku ana au ia oe, Aia i hea ka Wai a Kane?
Aia i lalo, i ka honua, i ka Wai hu,
I ka wai kau a Kane me Kanaloa
He waipuna, he wai e inu,
He wai e mana, he wai e ola,
E ola no, ea

One question I ask of you:
Where flows the water of Kane?
Deep in the ground, in the gushing spring,
In the ducts of Kane and [Kana]loa
A well spring of water, to quaff,
A water of magic power The water of life!
Life indeed, o give us life!

This stanza is part of the longer “Wai a Kāne” (water of Kāne) oli (chant) that describes the sources of wai (water) throughout the Hawaiian Islands as translated by Emerson (1909:258-259). We highlight this stanza describing groundwater in aquifers and springs because this is the primary water source in Kona. The chant describes the connections between water and Kāne, one of four major akua (deities) in Kānaka ʻŌiwi (Native Hawaiian) cosmologies, who, as ancestor to all living beings, provides fresh water, sunlight, and all life substances (Mitchell 2001; Hawaiian language translations here and throughout this text from Pukui and Elbert 1986, see glossary in Appendix 3). Oli along with mele (songs) and moʻolelo (legends) are important repositories of Indigenous knowledge that have been passed down in oral and written form (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani et al. 2020). This stanza also makes reference to Kanaloa (translated by Emerson as Loa), another major deity of the ocean, expansiveness, and the underworld. Together, Kāne and Kanaloa are known water finders, and this chant references their ability to locate water sources. This stanza demonstrates the knowledge of hydrogeology that allowed Kānaka ʻŌiwi to describe unseen water flowing deep underground, the spiritual reverence for water as a source of life, and the dedication to commit this knowledge to memory through chant, such that many generations came to learn these details about the water of Kāne.

INTRODUCTION

Efforts to holistically manage groundwater highlight the need to protect groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) for their social and ecological uses and values (Kløve et al. 2011, Wachniew et al. 2014, Esteban and Dinar 2016, Rohde et al. 2019, Elshall et al. 2020). Found worldwide, GDEs are ecosystems that are fed by groundwater, and include ecosystems above (e.g., wetlands, estuaries, springs/seeps, rivers/streams) and within subterranean zones (e.g., aquifers, caves and hyporheic zones; Eamus and Froend 2006, Humphreys 2006). GDEs often support high endemic biodiversity (Boulton 2020, Cantonati et al. 2020), can serve as important sites for food and water supplies (Murray et al. 2006, Burnett et al. 2017), and frequently have high social and economic value (Moosdorf and Oehler 2017, Burnett et al. 2018, Boulton 2020).

Despite their recognized value, academic research on and formal conservation of GDEs lags behind research and conservation efforts focused on ecosystems with substantial surface water input (e.g., streams; Mammola et al. 2019). Moreover, the majority of peer-reviewed GDE research focuses on hydrological and ecological characteristics (Eamus and Froend 2006, Kløve et al. 2011, Adams et al. 2015, Rohde et al. 2019), rather than their social value and characteristics. There are examples of studies on ecosystem services and the economic value of GDEs (Murray et al. 2006, Duarte et al. 2010, Tomlinson and Boulton 2010, CGIAR 2015, Burnett et al. 2017), but there have been far fewer studies focused on the social and cultural values of GDEs, particularly on how these values relate to GDE ecological structure and function (Boulton 2020). A recent review of the societal values of submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) highlights global examples of the social uses and values of SGD for drinking, hygiene, agriculture, fishing, culture, tourism, and navigation (Moosdorf and Oehler 2017). Through this review of primarily anecdotal evidence, the authors conclude that there is a need for dedicated research on human dimensions of SGD and the GDEs it supports: “because global change will strongly affect this water resource we should assess and understand that value, before the phenomenon will disappear at many locations due to terrestrial groundwater extraction or sea level increase” (Moosdorf and Oehler 2017:338). The need to better characterize the social values of GDEs (or the ways that these systems are important to people) also echoes broader calls to more thoroughly characterize the diverse values of ecosystems in decision making for more equitable and effective conservation outcomes (Pascua et al. 2017, Chan et al. 2020, Mandle et al. 2020).

Concern for the protection of GDEs and their linked ecological and social value is particularly strong in the Pacific where GDEs are prominent and are important places of Indigenous knowledge and practice (Pukui 1949, Macpherson and Macpherson 1990, Adler and Ranney 2018, Mead 2018, Brosnan et al. 2019, Boulton 2020). In these contexts, many GDEs can be understood through the framework of social-ecological systems or integrated, complex systems that include humans as part of nature (Berkes and Folke 1998).

The region of Kona, on Hawaiʻi Island (Fig. 1), provides a model system to address the linked social and ecological values of GDEs as its unique hydrologic, geologic, and social conditions support a high diversity and abundance of culturally and ecologically valuable GDEs, including loko iʻa (Indigenous aquaculture systems), loko wai kai (anchialine pools), and muliwai (estuarine systems that extend to nearshore fisheries; Brock and Kam 1997, Maly 1998, Maly and Maly 2003, Duarte et al. 2010, Yamamoto et al. 2015, Adler and Ranney 2018, Wada et al. 2020; see Figs. 2 and 3). Notably, 600 of the 700 known anchialine pools in the Hawaiian archipelago are found along the Kona coast (Yamamoto et al. 2015), and Hawaiʻi Island contains 80% of known anchialine pools worldwide (Christen et al. 2005). Historically, in part from a paucity of surface water features and low rainfall on this arid leeward coast, GDEs were a primary source of water and food for coastal communities in Kona, and these systems continue to have important cultural, social, and ecological value today (Adler and Ranney 2018, Maly and Maly 2003, Maly 2007). For example, loko iʻa aquaculture systems have been described as important sites of food production (Kamakau 1976, Winter et al. 2020a), and there is widespread interest in the restoration of these and other systems through biocultural approaches, which focus on the mutually reinforcing restoration of ecology, cultural knowledge and practice (Kimmerer 2011, Kurashima et al. 2017, Sterling et al. 2017, Adler and Ranney 2018, Morishige et al. 2018, Kealiikanakaoleohaililani et al. 2020, Winter et al. 2020b).

Drawing from Indigenous management principles, the Hawaiʻi State Water Code is among the first to encode holistic water management into law (Sproat 2015). Specifically, the public trust doctrine described by the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court as, “the right of the people to have the waters protected for their use [which] demands adequate provision for traditional and customary Hawaiian rights, wildlife, maintenance of ecological balance and scenic beauty, and the preservation and enhancement of the waters” (HRS 174C-2), aims to protect the multiple ecological and social uses of water including as used in aquifers, springs, and streams. However, the implementation of the public trust doctrine has lagged behind, in part because the inclusion of ecological and social values of water remains insufficient (Sproat 2015). In this context, Kona has emerged as a hotspot for conflicts around GDEs, including a recent petition filed by the National Park Service to the Commission on Water Resources Management (CWRM) to designate the Keauhou aquifer as a Ground Water Management Area (GWMA), implicating greater regulation and permitting requirements in order to better protect water flow and quality, including the protection of ecologically and socially important GDEs in the area (U.S. National Park Service 2013).

Although the Keauhou petition was not successful in designating the aquifer as a GWMA, the petition helped to elevate the importance of GDEs to the public trust doctrine, and resulted in a directive for CWRM to work with local communities, Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park, and researchers to improve understanding of the linked social and ecological uses and values of GDEs and how changes in water quality and quantity could affect these uses and values (Adler and Ranney 2018). This article responds to this need to improve understanding of the linked hydrological, ecological, and social values of GDEs and associated knowledge systems through a literature review and key-informant interviews with resource managers and lineal descendants (descendants of the original Indigenous tenants; Pascua et al. 2017). We focus on the following questions: (i) In what ways are GDEs used, valued, and cared for in Kona currently and historically?; (ii) What are the major perceived threats to these systems?; (iii) What are resource managers’ and lineal descendents’ visions for future use and management of these systems? In so doing, we document some of the importance of these systems for the people and ecology of Kona, providing an important case study of the linked social and ecological uses and values for GDEs for island and coastal communities that responds to broader calls for the recognition and elevation of Indigenous and local knowledge in natural resource management (Berkes et al. 2000, Kimmerer 2011, Winter et al. 2020b, Gadgil et al. 2021, Lander and Mallory 2021, Kamelamela et al. 2022).

BACKGROUND

This study focuses on GDEs associated with the Keauhou and Kīholo aquifers on the leeward Kona coast of Hawaiʻi Island, the youngest emergent island of the Hawaiian archipelago (Fig. 1). The aquifers associated with these watersheds are highly permeable and are composed of young vesicular basaltic bedrock, lava tubes, clinker zones, and downslope flow between lava flow sheets (Peterson et al. 2009). The arid leeward coast receives 200–750 mm of annual rainfall (Giambelluca et al. 2013), and the majority of groundwater recharge within these aquifer systems occurs on mountain slopes, with virtually all freshwater fluxes from the land to sea occurring as SGD rather than surface flow (Peterson et al. 2009).

GDEs on this coast are central to Kona’s history and culture as primary sources of water for drinking, bathing, agriculture, and spiritual practice, and described in many moʻolelo and historical accounts (see Table 1). Many moʻolelo and historical accounts, including those of GDEs, are documented in nūpepa (Hawaiian language newspapers), the world’s largest Indigenous archive, printed from 1834 through 1948 (Kihe 1869-1870, ʻĪʻī 1923-1924, Institute of Hawaiian Language Research and Translation 2018). Within two prominent newspaper series translated by the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Institute of Hawaiian Language Research and Translation, 19 of 38 article topics described Kona GDEs and their uses and values (detailed in Table 1; Kihe 1869-1870, ʻĪʻī 1923-1924). For example, two of these articles described the largest loko iʻa (recorded in the nūpepa as 3 miles long and 1.5 miles wide), Pāʻaiea, as the favorite loko iʻa of Kamehameha I (Kihe 1869-1870), the first aliʻi (member of the governing class) said to unite the eight main Hawaiian islands under his rule (Stokes 1932), and founder of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1810 (Beamer and Duarte 2009). The articles describe a moʻolelo associated with the destruction of Pāʻaiea loko iʻa by the Huʻehuʻe lava flow of 1800, and how this lava flow was attributed to the wrath of Pele (akua of volcanoes), who was denied a share of fish by Kamehameha’s konohiki (resource manager; see below for expanded translation; Kihe 1869-1870, Fujii et al. 1995). Two of these articles reference the moʻolelo, “the breadfruit roasting girls,” which describes the source of this lava flow that destroyed Pāʻaiea and how those who heeded Pele’s requests for fish and other offerings were spared (Kihe 1869-1870, Fujii et al. 1995; Table 1).

Though impacted by colonization and associated economic and political changes that occurred since 1778, the social uses and values associated with GDEs and other Kānaka ʻŌiwi social-ecological systems remain important today (Abbott 1992, Fujii et al. 1995, Osorio 2002, 2010, Howes and Osorio 2010, Winter et al. 2020a). This includes deeply held Kānaka ʻŌiwi values including pono (righteousness, balance), hoʻomana (creating, spirituality), mālama (to care for), kuleana (honored responsibility), and aloha (love), which have recently been discussed in the context of relational values (Gould et. al 2019) or the “preferences, principles, and virtues associated with relationships” (Chan et al. 2016:1462). Relatedly, GDEs continue to provide high social value in the sense of continued importance to people for their contribution to individual and community well-being (Gould et al. 2020).

In line with the continued social and ecological importance of GDEs, there has also been a resurgence in GDE stewardship, particularly since the 1970s, including the publication of the “Spirit of Kaloko Honōkohau,” a study submitted to the U.S. Congress in 1974 as part of a petition to designate Kaloko Honōkohau as a National Historical Park (Honokōhau Study Advisory Commission 1974). Since the time when Kaloko Honōkohau was designated, community-led efforts worked to restore social-ecological systems along the coast, providing important social and ecological benefits (e.g., Public Access Shoreline v. City Planning Commission 1995, U.S. National Park Service 2009; “Hui Aloha Kīholo” 2020, https://www.huialohakiholo.org; KUA Hawaii 2016, http://kuahawaii.org/kaʻupulehu-try-wait-faqs/; see Appendix 1.1.3 for further discussion of GDE political history). We describe three types of coastal GDEs in Kona, recognizing that there are other types of GDEs that are important and that these categories are overlapping rather than discrete (see Appendix 1 for additional description on GDEs).

Anchialine pools, loko wai kai

Globally, anchialine pools are widely distributed among porous substrates adjacent to the ocean, occurring wherever the underlying water table emerges through to expose fresh or brackish groundwater at the surface (Brock and Kam 1997, Weijerman et al. 2014, Yamamoto et al. 2015, Seidel et al. 2016). Anchialine pools have diverse ecological characteristics that vary substantially across pools, including salinity, temperature, light intensity, tidal mixing, and geologic structure; these characteristics can vary across gradients from high to low elevation, and from surface to subsurface pools, which can extend deep into underground cave systems (Brock and Kam 1997, Marrack 2014, Seidel et al. 2016). Tidal inundation and evaporation in coastal pools can result in salinities above usual seawater salinities of 33 parts per thousand (ppt), whereas inland pools can have salinities as low as 3 ppt (Seidel et al. 2016). Recognizing the hydrologic and biological diversity of these ecosystems, there are a variety of Hawaiian names reflecting distinct social uses and values, including: loko wai kai (mixing fresh and saltwater pond), wai ʻōpae (waters containing ʻōpae shrimp), loko wai (freshwater pond), ana wai (water cave), hāpuna (source water, spring, or pool), kiʻo wai (pool of water), kumu wai (source or spring water), luawai (well), māpuna (spring water), kāheka (tide pools with groundwater influence), and wai puna (spring water; Pukui and Elbert 1986, Maly 1998, Maly and Maly 2003).

Anchialine pools are used and valued within Hawaiian social-ecological systems for drinking, bathing, agriculture, refrigeration, spirituality, and healing, as well as for their unique ecology for aquaculture, collecting, and fishing (Brock and Kam 1997, Maly and Maly 2003, Adler and Ranney 2018). The Kekaha Wai ʻOle region (Fig. 1) is particularly noted for high numbers of wai ʻōpae, pools where ʻōpae ʻula (Hawaiian anchialine pool shrimp, Halocaridina rubra) were widely collected for use in offshore ʻōpelu (Decapturus spp.) fishing (Maly 1998, Maly and Maly 2003), as well as for deep sea fishing for aku (Katsuwonus pelamis) and ʻahi (Thunnus albacares; Maly 1998). A prominent Kanaka ʻŌiwi contributor to the Hawaiian language nūpepa from 1928 to 1930, John Kaʻelemakule Sr., lineal descendant of Kekaha Wai ʻOle, noted that in his lifetime, there was an industry in which dried ʻōpelu was shipped from Kona’s fisheries to be sold in Honolulu (Maly 1998), pointing also to the market value of anchialine pools during this period. Although wai ʻōpae is an important name for most of the pools in Kona, in which the ʻōpae ʻula are found, not all pools naturally contain ʻōpae (shrimp). For this reason we use loko wai kai to refer broadly to anchialine pools, which John Kaʻelemakule Sr. used to describe the mixed fresh and saltwater within the land and the pools of the Kekaha Wai ʻOle region. See Appendix 1.1.1 for further discussion of anchialine pool biology.

Nearshore brackish-marine ecosystems, muliwai

Nearshore marine waters are inundated with fresh to brackish groundwater where SGD springs release diurnal fresh pulses to nearshore reefs, creating intermittent estuarine, or muliwai, conditions (Duarte et al. 2006, Johnson et al. 2008, Kaleris 2006, Knee et al. 2010, Peterson et al. 2009). Pulses of SGD create muliwai waters that are cooler, and more nutrient-rich than nearshore waters without SGD-influence (Kaleris 2006, Johnson et al. 2008, Knee et al. 2010, Beusen et al. 2013). Muliwai in Kona extends from within the subterranean estuary, where mixing, biological transformation, and GDE species like ʻōpae ʻula range from within the aquifer itself, to estuarine tide pool systems, and nearshore reef ecosystems fed by SGD. Muliwai is populated by species that are physiologically able to thrive under conditions of sedimentation and oscillating estuarine and marine salinity (Christen et al. 2005, Taniguchi et al. 2017; Appendix 1, Table 1).

Nearshore muliwai-dependent and opportunistic muliwai inhabitants include invertebrates such as wana (urchins), ʻōpae (shrimps), pūpū (snails), and limu (edible macroalgae), which provide important minerals and variety for local diets (Titcomb et al. 1978, Abbott 1984, 1992). Limu and invertebrates also have high spiritual and cultural value for ceremonies, making tools and implements, costumes and instruments for hula (dance), and for lāʻau lapaʻau (Hawaiian herbal medicine; Titcomb et al. 1978, Abbott 1984, 1992). Some muliwai-associated edible and medicinal limu are limu pālahalaha (Ulva lactuca), limu ʻeleʻele (Ulva prolifera), limu manauea (Gracilaria coronopifolia), and ogo (locally adopted Japanese term for Gracilaria parvispora; Abbott 1947, 1992, Glenn et al. 1999, Amato et al. 2016). Some edible fish associated with muliwai are: ōʻio (Albula virgata and Albula glossodonta), moi (Polydactylus sexfilis), awa (Chanos chanos), weke (Mulloidichthys spp.), āholehole (Kuhlia sandvicensis and Kuhlia xenura), pāpio (young Caranx ignobilis and C. melampygus), ʻamaʻama (Mugil cephalus), and awaʻaua (Elops hawaiensis; Keala 2007). Spiritual practices associated with nearshore reefs include placing offerings at kūʻula (fishing shrines) and koʻa (fishing markers where wild fish are fed and cultivated; Maly and Maly 2003). See Appendix 1.1.2 for further discussion of muliwai biology.

Indigenous aquaculture systems: loko iʻa

Kānaka ʻŌiwi aquaculture practices include harvesting from and management of existing anchialine pools, but also aquaculture systems that are engineered by enclosing nearshore muliwai or otherwise modifying and stocking natural embayments and brackish pools with desirable species (Kikuchi 1976, Abbott 1992). A 1901 inventory for the Hawaiian archipelago recorded 360 existing loko iʻa, 99 of which were active and producing an estimated 486,000 lbs of ʻamaʻama and 194,000 lbs of awa annually (Cobb 1905). Loko iʻa conditions of shallow (less than six feet deep) embayments create areas of still water and ample sunlight, which cultivate “pastures” of microbenthos for grazing by herbivorous fish, primarily ʻamaʻama (mullet) and awa (milkfish; Abbott 1947; Appendix 1.1.3). Loko iʻa are also important sites of limu collection (Abbott 1992). By enclosing natural springs with rock walls, or by physically altering, managing, and stocking naturally occurring anchialine pools with desirable species (Kikuchi 1976, Maly 2003), loko iʻa historically contributed food supplies that supported the existence of the koa (warrior class), which functioned as an army for the aliʻi (governing class), and contributed to substantial food production systems that sustained high human populations in pre-European-contact Hawaiʻi (Kurashima et al. 2019).

Loko iʻa are described by Winter et al. (2020a) as an important example of trophic engineering, a type of “ecomimicry” in Kānaka ʻŌiwi social-ecological systems designed to use and expand natural processes such as transitional zones of groundwater and seawater to maximize food production and ecosystem services. Functioning loko iʻa increase sediment and nutrient retention, which, while undoubtedly altering natural flow patterns, provides important ecosystem services to nearshore reefs by reducing sediment and nutrient loads from upstream agricultural and residential development (Winter et al. 2020a, Wyban 2020).

Loko iʻa kuapā, the walled aquaculture systems, are special places for aliʻi, in that historically the aliʻi were able to produce fish for the royal court and their warriors (Maly and Maly 2003). Loko iʻa are important spiritual places where offerings to akua (deities) are made and iwi (cherished remains) are placed (Maly and Maly 2003). Additional guardian moʻo (water spirits) are believed to protect loko iʻa from pollution and overharvesting (Kikuchi 1976). Konohiki (resource managers) also acted as guardians who managed not only loko iʻa, but all ahupuaʻa (political-ecological land divisions) resources, including through implementation of kapu (laws holding spiritual repercussions; Maly 1998). In addition to the common translation of konohiki as resource manager, the term has also been interpreted as kono (ability) and hiki (to invite), meaning that the konohiki invited sustainable resource abundance (Andrade 2008). See Appendix 1.1.3 for further discussion of loko iʻa biology, and Appendix 1 1.2 for a discussion of invasive species impacts.

Many social, economic, and political factors led to continued declines in loko iʻa production and maintenance through the 20th century, including shifting economic conditions with colonization and the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, disease and population decline, privatization and development of coastal areas, and lack of management leading to overgrowth by invasive mangrove and other plant species and sediment accumulation (Wyban 2020). Today restoration of loko iʻa is prominent throughout Hawaiʻi with over 40 loko iʻa and 100 loko iʻa owners represented in the Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa network, a network of fishpond practitioners founded in 2004 and founded by the nonprofit KUA, Kuaʻāina Ulu ʻAuamo (http://kuahawaii.org/huimalamalokoia/; Wyban 2020).

METHODS

To deepen understanding of GDE uses, values, and management strategies and challenges from the perspective of those connected to these systems today, we conducted 19 key informant interviews with GDE resource managers and lineal descendants with genealogical and ancestral connections to the GDE locations. Of our 19 interviewees, 16 are in formal GDE resource management positions within the study region, and 10 identified as Kānaka ʻŌiwi, including six lineal descendants of the Kona region (see Table 2 for description of interviewees). Three of the interviewees were both resource managers and lineal descendants of the Kona region. Of the nine interviewees who did not identify as Kānaka ʻŌiwi, all had been employed in Kona for over five years, and five for over 10 years. Where interviewees are not identified in results as lineal descendents or Kanaka ʻŌiwi, the interviewee did not self-identify as either.

Initial interviewees were met through the first two authors’ attendance of the Adaptive Management Symposium on Ground Water Dependent Ecosystems at Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historic Park (Adler and Ranney 2018). We then identified other interviewees through snowball sampling (Creswell and Creswell 2018) and personal and professional connections in Kona. We did not speak with all resource managers in the region, nor did we speak with all knowledgeable lineal descendants; we instead focused on representation from ahupuaʻa throughout the region (Fig. 1). Semi-structured interviews focused on the historical and current uses and values of GDEs, current management strategies and perceived challenges, as well as desired futures (see Appendix 4 for interview questions).

In the context of this study, we use the term values to refer to the ways that GDEs are perceived as important and/or as providing (often reciprocal) benefits for individuals and communities, including how GDEs support appropriate human-environment relationships (Tadaki et al. 2017). In the results section we report the number of interviewees who brought up the importance of various uses and values, but these are not meant to suggest that those that did not explicitly bring them up did not find them important. Interviews were conducted at GDE sites relevant to each interviewee, which helped to facilitate conversations and understanding. The first author and primary interviewer of this study is not Kānaka ʻŌiwi, but was raised in Kona, and participated in GDE workdays and cultural events throughout her life. The fourth author is a lineal and cultural descendant of Kona, and the other authors are interdisciplinary researchers focused on the ecological and social dimensions of social-ecological systems in Hawaiʻi.

Following University of Hawaiʻi Human Subjects Review protocol, interviews were kept anonymous by only identifying quotes and information by location with permission from interviewees. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by major themes of this study: uses and values, management strategies and challenges, threats to GDEs, and visions for the future. Because many of the uses and values discussed were cultural or biocultural values, we used a Hawaiʻi-based cultural ecosystem service framework to categorize responses in this category (Pascua et al. 2017). This framework was developed with several communities in Hawaiʻi, including a community in Kona, and has been applied to several contexts including land use planning in Kona (Bremer et al. 2018a) and the cultural value of Indigenous agriculture in Heʻeia, Oʻahu (Bremer et al. 2018b). However, Pascua et al. (2017) emphasizes that the categories are overlapping and not meant to be prescriptive or comprehensive, but adapted to various contexts. The four main categories in the framework are: ʻike (knowledge); pilina kānaka (social connections); mana (spirituality); and ola mau (physical and mental well-being).

We engaged in an iterative research process where transcripts and the manuscript were returned to interviewees for comments and clarification. We also presented the work at several local events including the Hawaiʻi Conservation Conference and Hanauma Bay speakers series, always asking for permission and input before and after presentations. We circulated the manuscript to interviewees throughout the editing process, and iterated upon comments and revisions from each interviewee over email or phone.

RESULTS

Uses and values of GDEs in Kona

I think about the anchialine pools and the significance of the anchialine pools and how, if you have anchialine pools in your ahupuaʻa, especially in a place like North Kona, Kekaha Wai ʻOle,… you’re considered very wealthy.
- Kanaka ʻŌiwi resource manager (see Table 3.4.1 for expanded quote)

All interviewees emphasized the historical importance of GDEs as important water and food sources and as central to Kona politics and culture. The continued high social and cultural value of these systems is, in part, related to their storied history, as many GDEs feature prominently in moʻolelo and other accounts (Table 1). Interviewees pointed to the historical importance of anchialine pools and springs as a source of drinking water as a defining characteristic of Kona. Although anchialine pools and groundwater springs are not used as primary drinking water sources today, recognition of the historical importance of the pools and springs supports connection to kūpuna (ancestors) and to ancestral knowledge and practice. Given the high social and cultural value of these systems and recognition of their historical importance, restoration activities are primarily carried out through a biocultural approach (Kimmerer 2011, Morishige et al. 2018). Though not the most prominent of values discussed, interviewees also pointed to the financial value of GDEs as increasing property value and appeal of resorts through both aesthetics and by providing a “license to operate” through GDE preservation agreements with local communities.

The ʻōpae ʻula (the Hawaiian anchialine pool shrimp) helps to illustrate the biocultural importance of GDEs as well as the connections between their historical and current uses and values in biocultural restoration (Fig. 4). ʻŌpae ʻula are considered an important biocultural indicator of healthy anchialine pools, as stated by one Kanaka ʻŌiwi resource manager, “Anchialine pools have a lot of different purposes and one of the major purposes is to supply, to be home for ʻōpae ʻula... So once we see an abundance of ʻōpae ʻula come back, that’s when we can begin thinking of the reinstatement of practices again.” Interviewees explained that ʻōpae ʻula are desirable because they help maintain ecological balance by grazing algae and detritus, stirring up settled sediment, and increasing water flow from springs. Interviewees also emphasized the role of ʻōpae ʻula as central to Indigenous fishing practices.

Those working with anchialine pools (n = 15) expressed strong interest in restoring anchialine pools and ʻōpae ʻula populations for both ecological and cultural benefits, while some (n = 5) seek to support Hawaiian ʻōpelu fishing practices in the future by maintaining healthy ʻōpae ʻula populations (Fig. 4).

ʻIke: knowledge

To look at how water moves in the different wai [water] from the mauka [mountains] to makai [sea]; how the cloud patterns in Kahaluʻu move, and what captures it in the forest; the drip systems that start the process of creating water for Hawaiʻi, it is not rivers or streams, it is all underground systems; so, we have a huge amount of water here.
- Kanaka ʻŌiwi resource manager and lineal descendant of Kona

Interviewees emphasized that GDEs are valued places that cultivate ʻike (knowledge) through facilitating kilo (observation) practices, which facilitates inter-generational biocultural knowledge, provides educational opportunities to learn by doing, and creates networks of knowledge sharing (Table 3.1). Interviewees discussed GDEs as sites important for perpetuating knowledge of Indigenous practices associated with cultivating, fishing for, and collecting fish, plant, limu, and invertebrate species (Table 3.1.1). In the words of a loko iʻa resource manager and Hawaiʻi Island resident, “To bring back the health and abundance of Kīholo fishpond to feed the community once again ... We feel that’s very significant, work in the pond, learn from the pond, and eat from the pond. It sustains and grows them, it makes that connection even more visceral” (See Appendix I.2 for expanded quote).

Alongside harvesting, GDEs provide opportunities to learn Indigenous food preparation practices and other uses of GDE materials, including weaving of GDE-associated plant species such as makaloa (Cyperus laevigatus), into mats and other products. Three interviewees referred to John Kaʻelemakule Sr.’s recording that makaloa was harvested from remnants of the loko iʻa of Paʻaiea, at Kaʻelehuluhulu and used to decorate the town church through 1928 (also documented in Maly 1998). Makaloa harvesting, in turn, is thought by resource managers to reciprocally benefit the plant and pond system by thinning leaves through careful harvest.

The majority (n = 10) of interviewees also specifically mentioned GDEs as important sites for observation of seasonal changes and natural phenomena, including flows of water from the uplands to the sea, and observing and recognizing GDE plants (e.g., limu) and animals (e.g., ʻōpae ʻula; Table 3.1.2). One resource manager and Hawaiʻi Island resident explained:

I like to think of the groundwater as almost the blood that keeps the pond alive, it’s coming in through lava tubes and veins through the watershed, it enters the fishpond, and then I like to think of the tides as the heartbeat, because it’s moving that fresh water around. (See expanded quote in Appendix I.2).

Interviewees emphasized that kilo observations are important for management of GDEs, but also have value for broader society in understanding links between people and the environment. For instance, a Kanaka ʻŌiwi resource manager stated the following:

We have to look beyond jobs just in natural resource and conservation, but also begin to bring up the awareness of our kids so they can have jobs like in the planning department, they have a deeper insight into how everything fits in and how what they do, how that will impact the source.

Many interviewees (n = 10) discussed GDEs and other native ecosystems as valuable outdoor classroom spaces for STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and math) education, as explained by a Kanaka ʻŌiwi resource manager and lineal descendant:

Our keiki [children], once we train them, can interact with the beachgoers and share knowledge of the place. This kind of experience provides them [experiential opportunities to develop] different skills, public speaking skills, confidence, transferable personal skills. That is as important as teaching them how to collect water quality data from a YSI unit.

Interviewees also highlighted how GDEs have also helped to create community knowledge-sharing networks (Table 3.1.3). Most interviewees (n = 15) are members of a network of loko iʻa and anchialine pool resource managers and practitioners for collaboration, education, and development of best practices amongst GDE knowledge experts (“Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa,” 2014). Beyond this group, called Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa, interviewees attested to eight cases in Kona where resource managers and lineal descendants work together to share knowledge that is relevant to management decisions for the regions they care for in various capacities, from informal advising to formal committee participation. Interviewees (n = 8) emphasized that these relationships are seen as central to understanding change over time and are based on reciprocal knowledge sharing of historical conditions, stories, and management and discussion of present conditions and challenges. Some interviewees (n = 7) highlighted formal committees of lineal descendants and cultural practitioners who advise on GDEs restoration, maintenance, and education. In other cases (n = 2), GDEs have been dedicated to lineal descendants in honor of the ʻike imparted by these individuals for the preservation and management of these systems, and memorial plaques and museums at these sites help to perpetuate this history.

Mana: spiritual connections

For me, it’s a really sacred relationship with Keahuolū... And you know the ahupuaʻa, it’s a relationship that you have with her and like with any relationship it’s only over time that you gain deeper and deeper understanding.
-Kanaka ʻŌiwi resource manager

GDEs are seen as important places to cultivate spiritual beliefs and practices, which supports relationships to place and past and future generations (Table 3.2). Another Kanaka ʻŌiwi resource manager explained, “When you begin to do things that are pono [righteous] in different environments because you understand that it also nurtures you. It spiritually nurtures you because you begin to understand this, everything and the interconnectedness.”

Many interviewees (n = 11) highlighted GDEs as wahi pana, or storied landscapes, by referring to the importance of place-specific practices and histories associated with these landscapes (Table 3.2.2). For example, nearly half of interviewees (n = 7) pointed to how GDEs in Kona are woven into the history of lava flows and interactions with the volcano akua, Pele. Interviewees (n = 10) highlighted that GDEs are intricately linked to the history of human settlement and political power as some loko iʻa were status symbols of aliʻi that were transferred with transitions of power. Several lineal descendents (n = 2) and Kānaka ʻŌiwi resource managers (n = 2) explained that the history of these places contributes to their mana, and this knowledge is imparted from generation to generation. Interviewees also referenced spiritual importance of GDEs as important sites for iwi (treasured remains; n = 5), one hānau (birth sites; n = 1), and physical links to family genealogies and practices (n = 3; Table 3.2.2). Five interviewees described GDEs and other ecosystems as spaces where Kānaka ʻŌiwi can reconnect with their genealogy and practices, especially those who have lost connections with their family history and culture. As stated by a Kanaka ʻŌiwi lineal descendant and genealogist:

The land needs the people, or the people need the land. To be able to know your genealogy and your connection to your lands, and knowing the genealogy of the lands is really important, because then from there you can go and you can do further study about where your kūpuna [ancestors] were from.

Most interviewees (n = 11), however, cautioned that some sacred spaces and GDEs should not be accessible to everyone. For example, some GDEs are considered huna (hidden, sacred) and may have specific cultural protocols for visiting or access may be restricted altogether, whereas other GDEs are more suitable for community workdays and broader education and outreach. Today, appropriate use of each GDE must be considered on a case by case basis, and should be revisited and revised as needed based on changing environmental and social conditions, similarly to historical decision making under the konohiki and the kapu system. Interviewees (n = 8) emphasized that proper cultural protocol should be followed to respect these spaces and the mana associated with them.

GDEs are also sites with prominent biocultural indicators, such as the return of the ʻōpae ʻula as described above (Table 3.2.3), as well as with place-based Hawaiian names that help perpetuate connection and relationship to place (Table 3.2.4). Interviewees expressed a strong personal connection to the state and existence of ʻōpae ʻula within GDEs, and a spiritual connection through shared space and practice to past and future generations of GDE stewards who valued and fostered generations of ʻōpae ʻula.

Pilina Kānaka: social interactions

It [working in the loko iʻa] feeds us spiritually and emotionally, it brings us together as a community. Many of these people I work with down here at Kīholo have become some of my closest friends. So, feed can mean many things.
- Resource manager, Hawaiʻi Island resident

GDEs are highly valued as places that support social interactions, connections, and networks (Table 3.3). Although there is interest in GDE restoration for subsistence, such as loko iʻa, restoration of ʻōpelu fishing with recovering ʻōpae ʻula populations, and thriving nearshore systems (Table 3.3.1), interviewees emphasized the importance of thinking about the multiple ways that taking care of GDEs “feeds,” including through fostering community connections to each other and to place (Table 3.3.2 and 3.3.3).

Many interviewees discussed the historical context of GDEs in the context of their importance for social connections (Table 3.3.2). For example, several (n = 5) interviewees mentioned how the Kona trail system connects upland and lowland communities in Kona, such that mauka (upland) communities have relied on makai (lowland) communities and the GDEs they steward for subsistence through the act of mālama (where people care for each other) through sharing resources. GDEs remained important places for gathering even after drinking water wells replaced GDEs as primary water sources. For example, a Kanaka ʻŌiwi lineal descendant explained that when she was young, even though they lived mauka, they would holoholo (journey) to the coast to valued GDEs: “even though they were remote places, they had a strong emotional attachment, and in those days, there were fish galore.” She went on to explain how important these sites are for perpetuating intergenerational social connections and knowledge systems:

So that is, I think, the value in the insistence on perpetuating this knowledge. You are not thinking in terms of years, you are thinking in terms of generations... to mālama [care for], is ... sustaining, not only the physical nature of water flow and our places in the hydrological cycle, but our relationship to the elements in the hydrologic cycle, including each other.

GDEs continue to be highly valued as places of social connections across generations. In the words of one lineal descendant, “Kīholo is one of those places that I feel contributed to my sense of identity and connection to where I am from because of the memories I made there with my friends and family.” Another Kanaka ʻŌiwi resource manager emphasized the need to perpetuate these connections: “it’s a matter of keeping interest of the children now who are going to be the future caretakers in future generations and it’s a matter of just getting a few of them interested in it, knowing the need, the purpose and the value of these areas.”

Many interviewees who manage GDEs (n = 8) hold regular community workdays to restore GDE ecology and practice, which maintain and strengthen social ties (Table 3.3.3). All emphasized the positive impacts of building a community that cares about GDEs, as well as the satisfaction gained by work day participants from seeing the progress of restoration. Being a part of something bigger and a part of a positive change was a common theme with interviewees who worked with volunteers, as stated by one resource manager: "it’s not easy work but they really love this place and to me that’s a sign of success and it’s positive that people feel invested in this."

Ola mau: well-being

It [interacting with GDEs] gives them [Kānaka ʻŌiwi and other youth] an opportunity in a non-threatening, non-judgmental space to be who they are ... it then allows them to drop some of the barriers, the fences that they create in their lives because of some of the trauma that they experience.
- Kanaka ʻŌiwi Resource Manager who works with Kānaka ʻŌiwi and youth programs

GDEs are highly valued for their role in individual, family, and community mental and physical well-being (Table 3.4). There is interest in some places in restoring food systems, largely for their potential to improve physical and mental well-being in the community (Table. 3.4.1). As explained by one interviewee, “the goal is to eventually have this [loko iʻa] be a place where we can harvest fish for the community.” Beyond any actual food produced, there was also a strong sense that engaging in GDE restoration and practice provides important mental and physical health and healing benefits (Table 3.4.2). In the words of one Kanaka ʻŌiwi resource manager,

They have to get in there and begin to contribute. When they’re healing the ʻāina [land] they’re healing themselves. So, as we go I don’t think that we should be doing it for them, we should be doing it with them. It’s an opportunity that we have there. It’s important that we make the effort to try to get the kids in here to do this, to work towards them. For them to experience the blessings and see the outcomes.

The majority of resource manager interviewees (n = 12) attested to GDEs contributing to well-being through emotionally and physically satisfying employment in GDE biocultural restoration (Table 3.4.3). Positive experiences associated with employment in GDE restoration include: seeing visible and measurable progress in ecological restoration work, seeing enthusiasm and understanding from participants, especially keiki (children), and seeing mental and emotional progress in at-risk-youth participants. Many also expressed excitement in being a part of the Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa network and seeing community-wide benefits ranging from eradicating invasive species to improved historical understanding derived from knowledge sharing there (Table 3.3.2 and 3.3.3). One Kanaka ʻŌiwi lineal descendant and resource manager explained that his ancestor approved a private license to operate for a luxury resort within their ancestral ahupuaʻa so that their descendants could be employed and continue living in the region.

Another aspect of ola mau is food sovereignty and sustainability. Some interviewees (n = 5) look to a time when the food production function and populations of food species of GDEs are more fully restored, including harvesting in loko i’a, ʻōpelu fishing, limu and invertebrate gathering, and nearshore fisheries. Even partial restoration of loko iʻa production contributes to enriched individual experiences with GDEs, especially where some harvests are restored.

As discussed in relation to mana, some GDEs continue to be used for healing today, in part because of their multigenerational and historical significance (Table 3.4.4). For example, one interviewee spoke of a basal spring that was historically important during times of drought, and has been and continues to be important for self-care and well-being today. Another interviewee explained that while their partner was battling cancer they would visit an anchialine pool, not only to bathe in the pool for pain relief and healing, but also as a special place to spend healing time as a family.

Perceived current threats to GDEs and management responses

Major perceived threats to GDEs mentioned by interviewees include invasive species (n = 18), sea level rise (n = 18), nutrient pollution (n = 16), tsunami damage (n = 13), degradation associated with overuse and increased access (n = 12), reduced groundwater flow (n = 10), over pumping of groundwater resources (n = 9), and direct displacement by urban development (n = 7; Table 4).

Invasive species (Table 4.1 and 4.2)

Management efforts first focus on the most proximate threats to GDEs, one of which is invasive species. Within GDEs, invasive species compete with natives for space and resources, and alter the structure and function of the ecosystem. For loko iʻa and anchialine pools management efforts are focused primarily on the removal of invasive fish, invasive terrestrial plants, sediment build up, and algal biomass (see Appendix I, Table 2 for a list of invasive species in GDE systems). In particular, removing invasive guppies (Gambusia affinis and Poecilia reticulata) in anchialine pools is a primary management goal because they are predators of native ʻōpae ʻula and disrupt the natural function of these systems (Havird et al. 2013); accordingly, removing them using various approaches including carbon dioxide treatment is a primary management goal. Note that sedimentation occurs naturally in pools, but more rapidly without ʻōpae ʻula because of their role as detritivores and movement through water channels between the aquifer and surface pools. With invasive guppy removal in anchialine pools, improved water flow and water quality has been observed and is attributed both to direct removal activities as well as to the return of ʻōpae ʻula, which continue to remove sediment and algae and increase water flow through their role as detritivores and movement through subterranean spring channels. See Appendix 1.2 for further discussion of invasive species within GDEs. Both anchialine pool (n = 15) and loko iʻa managers (n = 2) also described removal of invasive terrestrial plants, primarily Paspalum vaginatum and Batis maritima, which overgrow and disrupt GDE ecosystem functioning. These same resource managers (n = 17) described that sediment and excess algae removal to prevent subsidence over time in anchialine pool and loko iʻa systems is achieved through manual removal and the use of sediment pumps.

Resource managers (n = 17) highlighted the value of knowledge sharing networks to address GDE management techniques and collaborative approaches. Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa, in particular, has provided an important network for shared information and resources to respond to the threats within anchialine pools and loko iʻa, such as sharing strategies and lessons learned in managing invasive guppies and sediment removal techniques.

Tsunami damage and sea level rise (Table 4.3 and 4.4)

Most resource managers (n = 9) noted the devastating effects of a 2012 tsunami, including through deposition of sedimentation and rocks, facilitation of the spread of invasive species, and structural damage. Responses to tsunami damage included physical restoration, barrier construction, and sediment and species removal. Even more so than just tsunamis, most interviewees (n = 15) pointed to sea level rise as an important threat and that tsunamis are a preview for what would come with sea level rise (confirmed by predictions of shifting of pools inland and loss of some pools; Marrack 2014, 2016). Twelve resource managers attested to using the Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System sea level rise prediction tool to plan restoration efforts (Hawaiʻi Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission 2021). Others acknowledged that GDEs will be so heavily impacted by sea level rise that some anchialine pools may cease to exist, while new GDES are likely to be created inland.

Groundwater quality and quantity (Table 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7)

Interviewees also pointed to the threat of declining SGD quality and quantity, related primarily to land-use change, wastewater management, and increases in groundwater pumping (Table 4.5 and 4.6). One lineal descendant and resource manager explained that she could feel and taste the change in Kona’s nearshore water quality during her lifetime, and that Kānaka ʻŌiwi now preferred to swim and fish in the more pristine southern Kaʻū region. Another lineal descendant expressed that the water temperatures along the coast have increased and that the quality has decreased in the nearshore with loss of freshwater springs, especially with dredging of Honokōhau Harbor. Interviewees also linked declining groundwater quality to declines in coral cover in the Keauhou aquifer, and bleaching on nearshore reefs associated with both the Keauhou and Kīholo aquifers. These changes were largely attributed to land-use change (e.g., urban development) and wastewater management issues, as described by one lineal descendant resource manager: “Water runs to the ocean from mauka to makai, but all the mauka lands have cesspools.”

A lineal descendant noted declines in culturally valued limu, and associated this change with declines in SGD quality and quantity: “I know Keauhou had the ʻeleʻele, [Ulva prolifera] I know that part is true and the kūpuna said they used to gather from that side, because we did, too, but it’s not there anymore ... it needs more cold water.” Others noted increases in algal growth as an indicator of increased nutrients or loss of herbivores within the ecosystem.

Urban development (Table 4.8)

Interviewees (n = 8) expressed regret at the loss of anchialine pools and spring resources associated with grading and filling of coastal lands for urban development, especially the loss of large anchialine pools within Lanihau ahupua’a for the development of the Old Kona Airport. One resource manager and Hawaiʻi Island resident highlighted how today informed and involved GDE communities have come forward to prevent development from impacting anchialine pool water sources:

So at Waikoloa they wanted to expand a huge development and basically wipe out a bunch of anchialine pools... The call went out to our Hui Loko network to all of our agencies that we need advocates at these meetings to say, one, you can’t just bulldoze anchialine pools, they’re valuable resources that should be protected. (See expanded quote in Appendix 2).

Others (n = 9) described the benefit of public-private partnerships and development agreements that protect GDE resources in perpetuity.

Overuse and increased access (Table 4.9)

Interviewees identified social media, geotagging, and tourism publications as sources of increased visitation to certain GDE systems (particularly small, vulnerable anchialine pools). Access roads and trails were also noted to increase the number of visitors to remote GDEs. Increased visitation, without education and personal connection, is seen as a major source of degradation of these systems, as explained by one Kanaka ʻŌiwi interviewee:

As with most of Hawaiʻi, our sacred and/or special places see more people, exposure, commodification, and at times, destruction. In today’s society of social media and Instagram celebrities, I see instances where people are willing to go to the extremes in order to ‘get the shot’ that will get them the most ‘likes’ even if they may not be aware of the negative impact they may be having on these places or people.

For example, in response to perceived insufficient staffing at state parks to educate visitors and enforce camping rules at Kīholo, the community, including lineal descendants responded by forming Hui Aloha Kīholo, a nonprofit management entity that monitors and protects natural and cultural resources, engages with and educates visitors, maintains the State Park reserve and manages camping. The Kīholo bay area is now jointly managed by the Division of State Parks and Hui Aloha Kīholo, which has improved many of the issues with visitor volume and misuse in this region.

Desired futures of GDEs

We also need to understand that the process is very important. If the process is not pono [correct and proper] then the outcome is never pono.
- Kanaka ʻŌiwi Resource Manager

All interviewees expressed a desire for GDE ecological function to be restored and maintained for future generations, along with continuing to perpetuate the history, practices, and social identity associated with these systems. Accordingly, many interviewees advocate a biocultural restoration and management approach. For some resource managers (n = 4), a key goal of restoration is to restore food production associated with these systems, whereas a larger number (n = 9) explicitly discussed restoring GDE-related Kānaka ʻŌiwi practices and language. Restored cultural practice is seen as a critical indicator of long-term restoration success, as one lineal descendant explained: “I always think about the practices that were passed on and where we are today, the gap that, for whatever reason there’s a gap, and we’re trying to re-establish the practice again.” Interviewees also discussed the importance of mālama (to care for), kuleana (honored responsibility), and pono (righteousness) as critical Kānaka ʻŌiwi values for biocultural restoration of GDEs.

There was also a strong sense of the importance of kūpuna (elder and ancestral) knowledge in informing management today. In the words of one Kanaka ʻŌiwi lineal descendent: "To learn the history, and to know that it’s not just an anchialine pool. There is a history to it, and if the kūpuna said so that is what it is.” Many interviewees (n = 8) also explicitly discussed the importance of GDEs for Kānaka ʻŌiwi children through providing opportunities for (re)connection to genealogy and history, for healing multigenerational trauma, and for reinstating cultural practices, Indigenous management practices, and balance in the ecology of these systems.

Interviewees generally advocated for adaptive management that integrates ancestral knowledge with modern management and technology to best care for these systems and associated knowledge and practices from the mindset of multigenerational preservation. One Kānaka ʻŌiwi resource manager pointed to a balance between technology and preservation: “We like the technology and we want to use it as much as possible to inform management decisions, just as long as we don’t push the boundaries to where it affects the integrity of the practice or the place. That’s something that we feel really strongly about.”

Interviewees (n = 10) expressed a desire to move toward a more holistic and thoughtful multigenerational planning and nearly all interviewees (n = 17) expressed some desire to look to the konohiki system of management, especially the inclusion of knowledgeable resident caretakers, to improve management of GDEs today. On defining konohiki as a system of resource management a Kanaka ʻŌiwi resource manager explained the following:

... resources, that again is a really Western term when we look at it... science uses it a lot but when you look at it from a Hawaiian perspective that is our sources, our sources of who we are, so, because, you’re related because there’s a kinship connection to these sources. It’s like other things, that’s stewardship. That feels good like you’re a good steward, but really it’s a kinship. (See expanded quote Appendix 2).

There was also a strong sense that GDEs are part of a broader connected ahupuaʻa system and that restoring and amplifying this relationship with the broader system is key. The importance of this relationship was expressed by a Kanaka ʻŌiwi resource manager who had worked in the area for 30+ years:

At first you just see the ahupuaʻa and you’re trying to understand the ahupuaʻa, but somewhere along the line the ahupuaʻa is teaching you. (See expanded quote in Appendix 2).

Perceived policy solutions to achieve these visions include limiting visitation to allow for “resting” of GDEs and creating a fee-based or tax-based system to fund docents for education and GDE maintenance. Additionally, interviewees (n = 5) suggested increasing setback laws to prevent additional development along the shoreline, which would protect existing GDEs and allow space for creation of new GDEs inland as expected with rising sea levels. Some resource managers (n = 6) asked for ingenuity in funding and policy that would allow them to efficiently enact GDE protections, for example, by allowing rapid responses to limit nearshore access during coral spawning. Other interviewees (n = 6) also highlighted desired improvements in GDE protection including impartial, high-quality environmental impact statements.

In addition to local-level interventions to achieve the aforementioned visions, interviewees emphasized the need for broader aquifer-wide interventions to prevent declines in SGD quality and quantity, particularly in the context of threats derived from climate change and future development. In particular, many interviewees (n = 14) pointed to the impacts of septic and cesspool systems on groundwater quality, and advocated for improvements in sewage treatment, while some (n = 2) advocated strongly for reverse osmosis sewage treatment and recycling of water.

DISCUSSION

This study highlights the ways people use, value, and care for GDEs in Kona, and provides insights into how Indigenous knowledge and practice informs sustainable land and groundwater management in Hawaiʻi and other coastal regions. In doing so, we help to address the critical need highlighted by Moosdorf and Oehler (2017) to better document the human uses and values associated with SGD and GDEs in order to better inform decisions that influence the health and abundance of these systems. Interviews also provide critical insight on steps and actions needed to support GDE stewards in protecting and restoring valued GDEs.

Though GDEs support the Kona economy through management jobs and increasing tourism and property value, our findings suggest that the most important current values of GDEs may be biocultural values well-aligned with the Hawaiʻi-based cultural ecosystem services framework developed by Pascua et al. (2017). Similar to conclusions about the cultural benefits of Indigenous wetland agriculture in Heʻeia, Oʻahu (Bremer et al. 2018b) using Pascua et al. (2017)’s framework, our findings also point to the importance of the process of restoration as fundamental to the benefits and values perceived today. This study is not a comprehensive record of values associated with GDEs in Kona, but does serve to elevate the human dimensions of GDEs, which have not been widely explored in the broader literature (Murray et al. 2006, Duarte et al. 2010, Moosdorf et al. 2015, Burnett et al. 2017), and has been identified as a key research need for groundwater management in Kona and in Hawaiʻi more broadly (Adler and Ranney 2018).

In line with the biocultural value of these systems, we found that the place-based history and historical uses of GDEs play an important role in influencing the current cultural (e.g., through customary rights and natural heritage) and economic (e.g., through tourism and employment) values of these systems. For example, the storied history of Kuhalalua spring in Keauhou as the birthplace of Kamehameha III elevates its cultural importance today because this spring is maintained for cultural value and as the site of Kamehameha III’s annual birthday celebration (Fig. 2d). Likewise, accounts of GDEs once providing abundant food sources for previous generations motivates restoration today, despite acknowledgement that restoring actual food systems may be far into the future.

In the context of GDEs, many of which once were vital to the people of Kona for drinking water and food production, managers generally recognize that restoration success does not rest in necessarily reviving all historical uses, but in the process of restoration that builds and re-establishes relationships between people, place, ancestral knowledge, and practice, and amplifies Kānaka ʻŌiwi deeply held relational values around caring for land, including mālama, kuleana and pono (Gould et al. 2019). This echoes broader efforts to employ biocultural approaches to conservation, which have accelerated around Hawaiʻi and beyond and which emphasize the reciprocal restoration of ecology and culture (Gavin et al. 2015, Sterling et al. 2017, Bremer et al. 2018a, 2018b, Morishige et al. 2018, Burnett et al. 2019, Chang et al. 2019, Winter et al. 2020a, Sato et al. 2021), and which highlight the role of the sacred in Indigenous conservation approaches (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani et al. 2018, 2020).

Supporting biocultural restoration of GDEs also requires shifting decision-making power to local resource managers and exploring models of community-based governance and Indigenous knowledge-based management of these systems. This has been similarly demonstrated for other systems in Kona (Kurashima et al. 2017, 2018, Bremer et al. 2018b, Sato et al. 2021, Kamelamela et al. 2022). For instance, biocultural restoration of dryland forest systems was shown to increase purpose and meaning in human relationships to place (Sato et al. 2021). Similarly, community-led restoration and Indigenous consensus-driven and place-based stewardship were shown to provide reciprocal benefits in restoring ecological function and Indigenous practice while building trust between community partners, articulating concepts of Indigenous and local knowledge-based restoration, (re)connection of Indigenous people to their land, and in addressing historical legacies of cultural and ecological degradation (Kamelamela et al. 2022). Community and Indigenous knowledge-based subsistence fishing and forest management areas and biocultural restoration offer potential adaptable models that may help to elevate Indigenous knowledge and local management systems broadly (Berkes 2004, Ostrom 2009, Vaughan 2018, Kamelamela et al. 2022; KUA Hawaiʻi 2016, http://kuahawaii.org/kaʻupulehu-try-wait-faqs/).

GDEs also face important challenges that on-site resource managers do not have direct control over, such as climate change and wastewater and watershed management. For example, sea level rise is projected to eliminate or severely alter some GDEs (by suppressing and otherwise altering SGD spring flow, and by submerging nearshore anchialine pools and loko iʻa), while also potentially creating new springs and pools inland (Marrack 2014, 2016). Tools like the Nature Conservancy’s sea level rise projection tool showing the impacts of sea level rise on Kona’s GDEs allow resource managers to prioritize restoration accordingly (Hawaiʻi Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission 2021). Interviews also highlighted desired improvements in GDE protections reflecting challenges outside of their control, including faster permitting for management response to emergency situations, impartial, high-quality environmental impact statements for development, increased shoreline setbacks, and time-wise resting or rotational closures of resources from human use.

In addition to climate change, interviewees pointed to the need for groundwater, wastewater, and watershed policy and management to more directly consider GDEs. Groundwater pumping for drinking water use and irrigation, for example, can result in a direct trade-off to GDEs through reduced flow and increased salinity (Burnett et al. 2020), though in cases where SGD is elevated in nutrients and other pollutants from wastewater and land management, even sustained flow can have adverse effects (Dailer et al. 2012a, 2012b, Delevaux et al. 2019, Wada et al. 2021). Hawaiʻi legislation requires upgrades of cesspool systems to septic or sewer systems, but legal compliance will likely be influenced by the upfront and long-term costs compared with available incentives. Upland of urban areas, there is additionally increasing attention to the role of watershed management in sustainable groundwater supplies (Bremer et al. 2021), as well as elevated efforts to reduce unnecessary human use of water and promote water conservation practice (Hawaiʻi Fresh Water Initiative 2015). Decision support modeling, such as that done by Wada et al. (2021), which identified land-use and wastewater management related impacts to GDEs and associated costs and benefits, could usefully link model outputs to potential outcomes for GDE biocultural values presented here for more informed policy decisions.

Outcomes of the aforementioned recent symposium on adaptive management of groundwater dependent ecosystems at Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park held by the Commission on Water Resources Management (the state water regulator) pointed to the importance of establishing relevant social-ecological indicators of healthy GDEs as a way to assess the impacts of water use and development on these important public trust resources (Adler and Ranney 2018). Recent work on biocultural indicators demonstrates the importance of developing indicators embedded in local conceptualizations and definition of resilience (Sterling et al. 2017, Dacks et al. 2019, Ingram et al. 2020). The uses and values illuminated here can provide important guidance of developing biocultural indicators that truly shed light on the social-ecological health of the system. Our study points to important biocultural indicators of recovering GDEs, including the presence of ʻōpae ʻula in anchialine pool systems, and continued or restored Indigenous practices, such as the feeding of koʻa or harvest of GDE species. Using kilo observational practices to guide management decisions is also an important biocultural indicator (Morishige et al. 2018), as are the temperature, taste, and smell of water. Future research could further develop these indicators and inform decision making by evaluating the effects of current and future water quality and quantity related to wastewater management, water use, forest conservation, development, and climate change.

For more effective groundwater management and protection of these ecosystems, GDEs and GDE practices across multiple disciplines (i.e., Kānaka ʻŌiwi cultural practice, ecology, biology, conservation, social science, and economics) and scales (i.e., individual ecosystems, regional, ahupuaʻa, island, state, and worldwide) should be tied to GDE hydrogeologic connectivity, and should continue to address newly identified gaps in knowledge. Individual GDE-dependent species likely have specific needs for qualities and quantities of groundwater that may be adversely impacted by changing land use, groundwater pumping, or polluting groundwater. Finally, there is a need for better understanding of the required quality and quantity of groundwater required for cultural practices, to ensure that these practices can be perpetuated. Biocultural restoration of thriving GDE social-ecological systems depends on proactive and constant evolution of the integration of Indigenous people, knowledge, and practices, with science, technology, and policy.

CONCLUSION

The Indigenous people of Kona have a long history of resilience and adaptation that is instrumental in successfully facing challenges in GDE management (McMillen et al. 2017). Today, a growing number of leaders, including lineal descendants, Kānaka ʻŌiwi scholars and resource managers, and kamaʻāina (people born of this land) of other ethic backgrounds have elevated the value and importance of GDEs and have clearly articulated visions for a more sustainable future. In the face of urban development, wastewater management, sea level rise, invasive species, and other challenges, the Kona community is at the forefront of combining Indigenous knowledge and resource management practices with contemporary technology for GDE biocultural restoration. Supporting local resource managers and lineal descendants in achieving these goals through re-orienting governance and funding toward community-based management will be critical to the long-term ecological and social health of these important systems. Incorporation of GDE values and Indigenous practices into stewardship and restoration decisions and policy is critical to protect GDE systems in Kona and throughout Hawaiʻi, and further contributes to the broader movement to elevate Indigenous rights, knowledge, values, and practice into the continued stewardship and restoration of social-ecological systems worldwide.

LITERATURE CITED

Abbott, I. A. 1947. Brackish-water algae from the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 1:93-214.

Abbott, I. A. 1984. Limu, an ethnobotanical study of some Hawaiian seaweeds. National Tropical Botanical Garden, Lawai, Kauai, Hawaii, USA.

Abbott, I. A. 1992. Lāʻau Hawai’i: traditional Hawaiian uses of plants. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Adams, M., P. L. Smith, and X. Yang. 2015. Assessing the effects of groundwater extraction on coastal groundwater-dependent ecosystems using satellite imagery. Marine and Freshwater Research 66:226232. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14010

Adler, P. S., and K. Ranney. 2018. Adaptive management symposium on groundwater dependent ecosystems at Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park (KHNHP), meeting record and summary. Commission on Water Resource Management, Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park Gateway Center. Kailua Kona, Hawaii. http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/cwrm/activity/keauhou/20181108-GDE_Symposium_Final.pdf

Amato, D. W., J. M. Bishop, C. R. Glenn, H. Dulai, and C. M. Smith. 2016. Impact of submarine groundwater discharge on marine water quality and reef biota of Maui. PLOS ONE 11:e0165825. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165825

Andrade, C. 2008. Ha'ena through the eyes of the ancestors. University of Hawaiʻi Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. https://doi.org/10.21313/hawaii/9780824831196.001.0001

Beamer, B. K., and T. K. Duarte. 2009. I palapala no ia aina – documenting the Hawaiian Kingdom: a colonial venture? Journal of Historical Geography 35(1):66-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2008.04.002

Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18:621-630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10(5):1251-1262. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2

Berkes F., and C. Folke, editors. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Beusen, A. H. W., C. P. Slomp, and A. F. Bouwman. 2013. Global land–ocean linkage: direct inputs of nitrogen to coastal waters via submarine groundwater discharge. Environmental Research Letters 8:034035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034035

Boulton, A. J. 2020. Editorial: Conservation of groundwaters and their dependent ecosystems: integrating molecular taxonomy, systematic reserve planning and cultural values. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 30:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3268

Bremer, L. L., N. DeMaagd, C. A. Wada, and K. M. Burnett. 2021. Priority watershed management areas for groundwater recharge and drinking water protection: a case study from Hawai‘i Island. Journal of Environmental Management 286:111622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111622

Bremer, L. L., K. Falinski, C. Ching, C. Wada, K. Burnett, K. Kukea-Shultz, N. Reppun, G. Chun, K. Oleson, and T. Ticktin. 2018a. Biocultural restoration of traditional agriculture: cultural, environmental, and economic outcomes of lo‘i kalo restoration in He‘eia, O‘ahu. Sustainability 10:4502. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124502

Bremer, L. L., L. Mandle, C. Trauernicht, P. Pascua, H. L. McMillen, K. Burnett, C. A. Wada, N. Kurashima, S. Quazi, T. Giambelluca, P. Chock, and T. Ticktin. 2018b. Bringing multiple values to the table: assessing future land-use and climate change in North Kona, Hawaiʻi. Ecology and Society 23(1):33. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09936-230133

Brock, R. E., and A. K. H. Kam. 1997. Biological and water quality characteristics of anchialine resources in Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (Report). Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Department of Botany, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/items/7a9310a4-ab65-4f73-be7b-9d9d70655e02

Brosnan, T., M. W. Becker, and C. P. Lipo. 2019. Coastal groundwater discharge and the ancient inhabitants of Rapa Nui (Easter Island), Chile. Hydrogeology Journal 27:519-534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1870-7

Burnett, K., A. S. Elshall, C. A. Wada, A. D. Arik, A. El-Kadi, C. Voss, J. Delevaux, and L. Bremer. 2020. Incorporating historical spring discharge protection into sustainable groundwater management: a case study from Pearl Harbor aquifer, Hawai‘i. Frontiers in Water 2:14. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2020.00014

Burnett, K. M., T. Ticktin, L. Bremer, S. Quazi, C. Geslani, C. Wada, N. Kurashima, L. Mandle, P. Pascua, T. Depraetere, D. Wolkis, M. Edmonds, T. Giambelluca, K. Falinski, and K. B. Winter. 2019. Restoring to the future: environmental, cultural, and management tradeoffs in historical versus hybrid restoration of a highly modified ecosystem. Conservation Letters 12:e12606. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12606

Burnett, K., C. Wada, A. Endo, and M. Taniguchi. 2017. The economic value of groundwater in Obama. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 11:44-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.10.002

Burnett, K. M., C. A. Wada, M. Taniguchi, R. Sugimoto, and D. Tahara. 2018. Evaluating the tradeoffs between groundwater pumping for snow-melting and nearshore fishery productivity in Obama city, Japan. Water 10:1556. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111556

Cantonati, M., L. E. Stevens, S. Segadelli, A. E. Springer, N. Goldscheider, F. Celico, M. Filippini, K. Ogata, and A. Gargini. 2020. Ecohydrogeology: the interdisciplinary convergence needed to improve the study and stewardship of springs and other groundwater-dependent habitats, biota, and ecosystems. Ecological Indicators 110:105803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105803

CGIAR. 2015. Groundwater and ecosystem services: a framework for managing smallholder groundwater-dependent agrarian socio-ecologies - applying an ecosystem services and resilience approach. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.5337/2015.208

Chan, K. M. A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Gould, N. Hannahs, K. Jax, S. Klain, G. W. Luck, B. Martín-López, B. Muraca, B. Norton, K. Ott, U. Pascual, T. Satterfield, M. Tadaki, J. Taggart, and N. Turner. 2016. Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(6):1462-1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Chan, K. M. A., D. R. Boyd, R. K. Gould, J. Jetzkowitz, J. Liu, B. Muraca, R. Naidoo, P. Olmsted, T. Satterfield, O. Selomane, G. G. Singh, R. Sumaila, H. T. Ngo, A. K. Boedhihartono, J. Agard, A. P. D. de Aguiar, D. Armenteras, L. Balint, C. Barrington-Leigh, W. W. L. Cheung, S. Díaz, J. Driscoll, K. Esler, H. Eyster, E. J. Gregr, S. Hashimoto, G. C. Hernández Pedraza, T. Hickler, M. Kok, T. Lazarova, A. A. A. Mohamed, M. Murray-Hudson, P. O’Farrell, I. Palomo, A. K. Saysel, R. Seppelt, J. Settele, B. Strassburg, D. Xue, and E. S. Brondízio. 2020. Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People and Nature 2(3):693–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10124

Chang, K., K. B. Winter, and N. K. Lincoln. 2019. Hawaiʻi in focus: navigating pathways in global biocultural leadership. Sustainability 11:283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010283

Christen, M., C. Ogura, D. Meadows, A. Kāne, L. Strommer, S. Fretz, D. Leonard, and A. McClung. 2005. Hawaii’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Cobb, J. N. 1905. The commercial fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 428-33. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.54968

Creswell, J. W., and J. D. Creswell. 2018. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Fourth edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Dacks, R., T. Ticktin, A. Mawyer, S. Caillon, J. Claudet, P. Fabre, S. D. Jupiter, J. McCarter, M. Mejia, P. Pascua, E. Sterling, and S. Wongbusarakum. 2019. Developing biocultural indicators for resource management. Conservation Science and Practice 1(6):e38. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.38

Dailer, M. L., H. L. Ramey, S. Saephan, and C. M. Smith. 2012a. Algal δ¹⁵N values detect a wastewater effluent plume in nearshore and offshore surface waters and three-dimensionally model the plume across a coral reef on Maui, Hawaiʻi, USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64:207-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.12.004

Dailer, M. L., J. E. Smith, and C. M. Smith. 2012b. Responses of bloom forming and non-bloom forming macroalgae to nutrient enrichment in Hawaiʻi, USA. Harmful Algae 17:111-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2012.03.008

Delevaux, J. M. S., K. A. Stamoulis, R. Whittier, S. D. Jupiter, L. L. Bremer, A. Friedlander, N. Kurashima, J. Giddens, K. B. Winter, M. Blaich‐Vaughan, K. M. Burnett, C. Geslani, and T. Ticktin. 2019. Place-based management can reduce human impacts on coral reefs in a changing climate. Ecological Applications 29:e01891. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1891

Delevaux, J. M. S., K. B. Winter, S. D. Jupiter, M. Blaich-Vaughan, K. A. Stamoulis, L. L Bremer, K. Burnett, P. Garrod, J. L. Troller, and T. Ticktin. 2018. Linking land and sea through collaborative research to inform contemporary applications of traditional resource management in Hawaiʻi. Sustainability 10:3147. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093147

Duarte, T. K., H. F. Hemond, D. Frankel, and S. Frankel. 2006. Assessment of submarine groundwater discharge by handheld aerial infrared imagery: case study of Kaloko fishpond and bay, Hawaiʻi. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 4:227-236. https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2006.4.227

Duarte, T. K., S. Pongkijvorasin, J. Roumasset, D. Amato, and K. Burnett. 2010. Optimal management of a Hawaiian coastal aquifer with nearshore marine ecological interactions. Water Resources Research 46(11). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009094

Eamus, D., and R. Froend. 2006. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: the where, what and why of GDEs. Australian Journal of Botany 54:91-96. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT06029

Elshall, A. S., A. D. Arik, A. I. El-Kadi, S. Pierce, M. Ye, K. M. Burnett, C. A. Wada, L. L. Bremer, and G. Chun. 2020. Groundwater sustainability: a review of the interactions between science and policy. Environmental Research Letters 15:093004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8e8c

Emerson, N. B. 1909. The water of Kāne. Pages 257-259 in Unwritten literature of Hawaii: the sacred songs of the hula. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Esteban, E., and A. Dinar. 2016. The role of groundwater-dependent ecosystems in groundwater management. Natural Resource Modeling 29:98-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12082

Fujii, J., F. Salmoiraghi, and H. K. Springer. 1995. In the lee of Hualalai: historic Kaʻūpūlehu. First edition. Kaupulehu Makai Venture, Kailua-Kona, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 2021. Indigenous knowledge: from local to global. Ambio 50(5):967-969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01478-7

Gavin, M. C., J. McCarter, A. Mead, F. Berkes, J. R. Stepp, D. Peterson, and R. Tang. 2015. Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30(3):140-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.005

Giambelluca, T. W., Q. Chen, A. G. Frazier, J. P. Price, Y. L. Chen, P. S. Chu, J. K. Eischeid, and D. M. Delparte. 2013. Online rainfall atlas of Hawaiʻi. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94:313-316. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1

Glenn, E. P., D. Moore, M. Akutagawa, A. Himler, T. Walsh, and S. G. Nelson. 1999. Correlation between Gracilaria parvispora (Rhodophyta) biomass production and water quality factors on a tropical reef in Hawaii. Aquaculture 178:323-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00139-8

Gould, R. K., C. E. Morse, J. Brooks, and A. Adams. 2020. “So much for access:” difference, benefits, and barriers at Hawaii’s shorelines. Geographical Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167428.2020.1812069

Gould, R. K., M. Pai, B. Muraca, and K. M. A. Chan. 2019. He ʻike ʻana ia i ka pono (it is a recognizing of the right thing): how one indigenous worldview informs relational values and social values. Sustainability Science 14:1213-1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00721-9

Havird, J. C., J. R. Weeks, S. Hau, and S. R. Santos. 2013. Invasive fishes in the Hawaiian anchialine ecosystem: investigating potential predator avoidance by endemic organisms. Hydrobiologia 716:189-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1568-8

Hawaiʻi Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission. 2021. State of Hawaiʻi sea level rise viewer. Version 1.04. Prepared by the Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PacIOOS) for the University of Hawaiʻi Sea Grant College Program and the State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, with funding from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office for Coastal Management Award No. NA16NOS4730016 and under the State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources Contract No. 64064. Pacific Islands Ocean Observing System (PacIOOS), Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA. http://hawaiisealevelriseviewer.org

Hawaiʻi Fresh Water Initiative. 2015. A blueprint for action: water security for an uncertain future 2016-2030. Hawaiʻi Community Foundation, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. https://www.hawaiicommunityfoundation.org/file/2021/Blueprint-for-Action-2016-2030-2.pdf

Honokōhau Study Advisory Commission. 1974. The spirit of Kaloko Honōkohau. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., USA.

Howes, C., and J. Osorio, editors. 2010. The value of Hawaiʻi. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Humphreys, W. F. 2006. Aquifers: the ultimate groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Australian Journal of Botany 54:115-132. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT04151

ʻĪʻī, J. I. P. 1923-1924. Na hunahuna no ka moolelo Hawaii. na hunahuna no ka moolelo Hawaii. Translated by J. K. Lyons and J. U. Au. Na hunahuna no ka moolelo Hawaii and University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii, USA. https://uhm.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=77d250737aac4096bfd745b904320787

Ingram, R. J., K. M. Leong, J. Gove, and S. Wongbusarakum. 2020. Including human well-being in resource management with cultural ecosystem services (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-112). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. https://doi.org/10.25923/q8ya-8t22

Institute of Hawaiian Language Research and Translation. 2018. Translation process and methodology. ʻIke Wai, Hawaii, USA. http://ikewai.org/translation-process-and-methodology/

Johnson, A. G., C. R. Glenn, W. C. Burnett, R. N. Peterson, P. G. Lucey. 2008. Aerial infrared imaging reveals large nutrient-rich groundwater inputs to the ocean. Geophysical Research Letters 35(15). https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034574

Kaleris, V. 2006. Submarine groundwater discharge: Effects of hydrogeology and of near shore surface water bodies. Journal of Hydrology 325:96-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.10.008

Kamakau, S. M. 1976. The works of the people of old: Na Hana a ka Poʻe Kahiko. Translated by M. Kawena Pukui. D. B. Barrere, editor. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Special Publication, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Kamelamela, K. L., H. K. Springer, R. Ku’ulei Keakealani, M. U. Ching, T. Ticktin, R. D. Ohara, E. W. Parsons, E. D. Adkins, K. S. Francisco, and C. Giardina. 2022. Kōkua aku, Kōkua mai: an Indigenous consensus-driven and place-based approach to community led dryland restoration and stewardship. Forest Ecology and Management 506:119949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119949

Keala, G. 2007. Loko iʻa: a manual on Hawaiian fishpond restoration and management. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, K., N. Kurashima, K. S. Francisco, C. P. Giardina, R. P. Louis, H. McMillen, C. K. Asing, K. Asing, T. A. Block, M. Browning, K. Camara, L. Camara, M. L. Dudley, M. Frazier, N. Gomes, A. E. Gordon, M. Gordon, L. Heu, A. Irvine, N. Kaawa, S. Kirkpatrick, E. Leucht, C. H. Perry, J. Replogle, L.-L. Salbosa, A. Sato, L. Schubert, A. Sterling, A. L. Uowolo, J. Uowolo, B. Walker, A. N. Whitehead, and D. Yogi. 2018. Ritual + sustainability science? A portal into the science of aloha. Sustainability 10(10):3478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103478

Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, K., A. Y. Sato, C. P. Giardina, C. M. Litton, S. Ramavarapu, L. Hutchins, E. H. Wight, M. Clark, S. Cordell, K. S. Francisco, H. McMillen, P. Pascua, and D. Yogi. 2020. Increasing conservation capacity by embracing ritual: kuahu as a portal to the sacred. Pacific Conservation Biology 27(4):327-336. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC20010

Kihe, I. W. H. 1869-1870. Na hoonanea o ka manawa. Translated by E. Bennett and M. P. Nogelmeier. ʻIke Wai, Hawaii, USA. https://uhm.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=a56b71ff1eb446b29c4d750f71c50daa

Kikuchi, W. K. 1976. Prehistoric Hawaiian fishponds. Science 193:295-299. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.193.4250.295

Kimmerer, R. 2011. Restoration and reciprocity: the contributions of traditional ecological knowledge. Pages 257-276 in D. Egan, E. E. Hjerpe, and J. Abrams, editors. Human dimensions of ecological restoration: integrating science, nature, and culture. Island, Washington, D.C., USA. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-039-2_18

Kløve, B., P. Ala-aho, G. Bertrand, Z. Boukalova, A. Ertürk, N. Goldscheider, J. Ilmonen, N. Karakaya, H. Kupfersberger, J. Kvœrner, A. Lundberg, M. Mileusnić, A. Moszczynska, T. E. Muotka, E. Preda, P. Rossi, D. Siergieiev, J. Šimek, P. Wachniew, V. Angheluta, and A. Widerlund. 2011. Groundwater dependent ecosystems. Part I: Hydroecological status and trends. Environmental Science and Policy 14:770-781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.002

Knee, K. L., J. H. Street, E. E. Grossman, A. B. Boehm, and A. Paytan. 2010. Nutrient inputs to the coastal ocean from submarine groundwater discharge in a groundwater-dominated system: relation to land use (Kona coast, Hawaii, U.S.A.). Limnology and Oceanography 55:1105-1122. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2010.55.3.1105

Kurashima, N., L. Fortini, and T. Ticktin. 2019. The potential of indigenous agricultural food production under climate change in Hawaiʻi. Nature Sustainability 2:191-199. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0226-1

Kurashima, N., J. Jeremiah, and T. Ticktin. 2017. I ka wā ma mua: the value of a historical ecology approach to ecological restoration in Hawai’i. Pacific Science 71:437-456. https://doi.org/10.2984/71.4.4

Kurashima, N., J. Jeremiah, A. N. Whitehead, J. Tulchin, M. Browning, and T. Duarte. 2018. ‘Āina Kaumaha: The maintenance of ancestral principles for 21st century Indigenous resource management. Sustainability 10:3975. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113975

Lander, E. S., and B. Mallory. 2021. Memorandum for the heads of departments and agencies: Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge and federal decision making. Executive Office of the President. Office of Science and Technology Policy Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C., USA.

Macpherson, C., and L. Macpherson. 1990. Samoan medical belief and practice. Auckland University Press, Auckland, New Zealand.

Maly, K. 1998. “Kekaha wai ʻole o nā Kona”: a report on archival and historical documentary research, and oral history interviews for Kekaha Kai State Park : ahupuaʻa of Kaulana, Mahaiʻula, Makalawena, Awakeʻe, Maniniʻōwali, and Kūkiʻo, district of North Kona, Island of Hawaiʻi (TMK overview:7-2). Kumu Pono Associates, Hilo, Hawaiʻi, USA. https://www.kumupono.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2003_06_30_Kohanaiki-Kona-Hawaii-PDF.pdf

Maly, K. 2003. He wahi moʻolelo no na lawaiʻa ma Kapalilua, Kona Hema, Hawaiʻi, A collection of historical accounts and oral history interviews with elder kamaʻāina fisher-people from the Kapalilua region of South Kona, Island of Hawaiʻi. Kumu Pono Associates, Hilo, Hawaiʻi, USA. https://puke.ulukau.org/ulukau-books/cgi-bin/imageserver.pl?oid=EBOOK-MALY5&getpdf=true

Maly, K. 2007. He wahi moʻolelo no Kahaluʻu me Keauhou-a collection of traditions and historical accounts from the Kahaluʻu-Keauhou vicinity in Kona, Hawaiʻi. Kumu Pono Associates, Hilo, Hawaiʻi, USA. https://www.kohalacenter.org/pdf/History_Kahalu%60u_%20Keauhou.pdf

Maly, K., and O. Maly. 2003. Ka hana lawaiʻa a me nā koʻa o nā kai ʻewalu: summary of detailed findings from research on the history of fishing practices and marine fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. Kumu Pono Associates, Hilo, Hawaiʻi, USA. https://www.kumupono.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Ka-Hana_Lawaia_A_Me-Na_Koa.pdf

Mammola, S., P. Cardoso, D. C. Culver, L. Deharveng, R. L. Ferreira, C. Fišer, D. M. P. Galassi, C. Griebler, S. Halse, W. F. Humphreys, M. Isaia, F. Malard, A. Martinez, O. T. Moldovan, M. L. Niemiller, M. Pavlek, A. S. Reboleira, M. Souza-Silva, E. C. Teeling, J. J. Wynne, and M. Zagmajster. 2019. Scientists’ warning on the conservation of subterranean ecosystems. BioScience 69(8):641-650. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz064

Mandle, L., A. Shields-Estrada, R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. G. Mitchell, L. L. Bremer, J. D. Gourevitch, P. Hawthorne, J. A. Johnson, B. E. Robinson, J. R. Smith, et al. 2021. Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science. Nature Sustainability 4(2):161-169. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y

Marrack, L. 2014. Incorporating groundwater levels into sea-level detection models for Hawaiian anchialine pool ecosystems. Journal of Coastal Research 1170-1182. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-13-00043.1

Marrack, L. 2016. Modeling potential shifts in Hawaiian anchialine pool habitat and introduced fish distribution due to sea level rise. Estuaries and Coasts 39:781-797.

McMillen, H., T. Ticktin, and H. K. Springer. 2017. The future is behind us: traditional ecological knowledge and resilience over time on Hawaiʻi Island. Regional Environmental Change 17:579-592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1032-1

Mead, D. J. 2018. Protecting the Karst Te Waikoropupū Springs in New Zealand. Geologia Croatica 71:113-119. https://doi.org/10.4154/gc.2018.08

Mitchell, D. D. K. 2001. Religious beliefs and practices. Resource units in Hawaiian culture. Kamehameha Schools. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Moosdorf, N., and T. Oehler. 2017. Societal use of fresh submarine groundwater discharge: an overlooked water resource. Earth-Science Reviews 171:338-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.06.006

Moosdorf, N., T. Stieglitz, H. Waska, H.H. Dürr, J. Hartmann. 2015. Submarine groundwater discharge from tropical islands: a review. Grundwasser 20:53-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00767-014-0275-3

Morishige, K., P. Andrade, P. Pascua, K. Steward, E. Cadiz, L. Kapono, and U. Chong. 2018. Nā kilo ʻāina: visions of biocultural restoration through Indigenous relationships between people and place. Sustainability 10:3368. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103368

Murray, B. R., G. C. Hose, D. Eamus, and D. Licari. 2006. Valuation of groundwater-dependent ecosystems: a functional methodology incorporating ecosystem services. Australian Journal of Botany 54:221-229. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT05018

Osorio, J. K. K. 2002. Dismembering lahui. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824845407

Osorio, J. K. K. 2010. Hawaiian issues, the value of Hawaiʻi. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Ostrom, E. 2009. a general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419-422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Pascua, P., H. McMillen, T. Ticktin, M. Vaughan, and K. B. Winter. 2017. Beyond services: a process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships in ecosystem service assessments. Ecosystem Services 26:465-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.012

Peterson, R. N., W. C. Burnett, C. R. Glenn, and A. G. Johnson. 2009. Quantification of point-source groundwater discharges to the ocean from the shoreline of the Big Island, Hawaii. Limnology and Oceanography 54:890-904. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2009.54.3.0890

Public Access Shoreline v. City Planning Commission. 1995. 79 Hawaii. 425, 903 P.2d 1246. Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi, Hawaii, USA. http://www.hawaii.edu/ohelo/courtdecisions/pdf/PASH95.pdf

Pukui, M. K. 1949. Songs (meles) of old Kaʻu, Hawaii. Journal of American Folklore 62:247-258. https://doi.org/10.2307/537201

Pukui, M. K., and S. H. Elbert. 1986. Hawaiian dictionaries: Hawaiian-English English-Hawaiian revised and enlarged edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. https://puke.ulukau.org/?a=d&d=EBOOK-PED.2.1.1&e=-------haw-20--1--txt-txPT-----------

Rohde, M. M., S. B. Sweet, C. Ulrich, and J. Howard. 2019. A transdisciplinary approach to characterize hydrological controls on groundwater-dependent ecosystem health. Frontiers of Environmental Science 7:175. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00175

Sato, A. Y., T. Ticktin, L. Alapai, E. I. von Allmen, W. P. I. Brawner, Y. Y. Carter, K. A. Carter, R. K. Keakealani, A. C. Medeiros, and R. A. Zahawi. 2021. Biocultural restoration of Hawaiian tropical dry forests. Pacific Conservation Biology 27(4):362-375. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC20084

Seidel, B., A. Brasher, K. Auerswald, and J. Geist. 2016. Physicochemical characteristics, community assemblages, and food web structure in anchialine pools along the Kona Coast on the Island of Hawaii, USA. Hydrobiologia 770:225-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2594-5

Sproat, D. K. 2015. From wai to kānāwai: water law in Hawaiʻi. Chapter 9 in M. K. MacKenzie, S. K. Serrano, D. K. Sproat, A. K. Obrey, and A. K. Poai, editors. Native Hawaiian law: a treatise. Kamehameha Publishing, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Sterling, E. J., C. Filardi, A. Toomey, A. Sigouin, E. Betley, N. Gazit, J. Newell, S. Albert, D. Alvira, N. Bergamini, M. Blair, D. Boseto, K. Burrows, N. Bynum, S. Caillon, J. E. Caselle, J. Claudet, G. Cullman, R. Dacks, P. B. Eyzaguirre, S. Gray, J. Herrera, P. Kenilorea, K. Kinney, N. Kurashima, S. Macey, C. Malone, S. Mauli, J. McCarter, H. McMillen, P. Pascua, P. Pikacha, A. L. Porzecanski, P. Robert, M. Salpeteur, M. Sirikolo, M. H. Stege, K. Stege, T. Ticktin, R. Vave, A. Wali, P. West, K. B. Winter, and S. D. Jupiter. 2017. Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1:1798-1806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0349-6

Stokes, J. F. G. 1932. The Hawaiian King (mo-i, alii-aimoku, alii-kapu). Papers of the Hawaiian Historical Society 19. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Tadaki, M., J. Sinner, and K. M. A. Chan. 2017. Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts. Ecology and Society 22(1):7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08999-220107

Taniguchi, M., A. Endo, J. J. Gurdak, and P. Swarzenski. 2017. Water-energy-food Nexus in the Asia-Pacific Region. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 11:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2017.06.004

Titcomb, M., D. B. Fellows, M. K. Pukui, and D. M. Devaney. 1978. Native use of marine invertebrates in old Hawaii. Pacific Science 32:325-386.

Tomlinson, M., and A. J. Boulton. 2010. Ecology and management of subsurface groundwater dependent ecosystems in Australia - a review. Marine Freshwater Resources 61:936-949. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF09267

U.S. National Park Service. 2009. Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan. U.S. National Park Service, Pacific West Region, Oakland, California, USA. https://www.nps.gov/alka/learn/management/upload/ALKA_CMP_low-resolution.pdf

U.S. National Park Service. 2013. Petition to designate the Keauhou aquifer system as a water management area. Petition to State of Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, Commission for Water Resources Management. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., USA. http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/cwrm/activity/keauhou/20130913-GWmap.pdf

Vaughan, M. B. 2018. Kaiāulu: gathering tides. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Wachniew, P., S. Witczak, A. Postawa, J. Kania, A. Zurek, K. Rozanski, and M. Dulinski. 2014. Groundwater dependent ecosystems and man: conflicting groundwater uses. Geological Quarterly 58:695-706.

Wada, C. A., K. M. Burnett, B. K. Okuhata, J. M. S. Delevaus, H. Dulai, A. I. El-Kadi, V. Gibson, C. Smith, and L. L. Bremer. 2021. Identifying wastewater management tradeoffs: costs, nearshore water quality, and implications for marine coastal ecosystems in Kona, Hawaiʻi. PLoS ONE 16:e0257125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257125

Wada, C. A., S. Pongkijvorasin, and K. M. Burnett. 2020. Mountain-to-sea ecological-resource management: forested watersheds, coastal aquifers, and groundwater dependent ecosystems. Resources and Energy Economics 59:101146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2019.101146

Weijerman, M., S. Beavers, L. Marrack, and R. Most. 2014. Baseline assessment of the coral reef habitat in Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park adjacent to the proposed Honokohau Harbor expansion and development, Kona kai ola, 2006-2007 (Report). Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii, USA.

Winter, K. B., N. K. Lincoln, F. Berkes, R. A. Alegado, N. Kurashima, K. L. Frank, P. Pascua, Y. M. Rii, F. Reppun, I. S. S. Knapp, W. C. McClatchey, T. Ticktin, C. Smith, E. C. Franklin, K. Oleson, M. R. Price, M. A. McManus, M. J. Donahue, K. S. Rodgers, B. W. Bowen, C. E. Nelson, B. Thomas, J.-A. Leong, E. M. P. Madin, M. A. J. Rivera, K. A. Falinski, L. L. Bremer, J. L. Deenik, S. M. Gon III, B. Neilson, R. Okano, A. Olegario, B. Nyberg, A. H. Kawelo, K. Kotubetey, J. K. Kukea-Shultz, and R. J. Toonen. 2020a. Ecomimicry in Indigenous resource management: optimizing ecosystem services to achieve resource abundance, with examples from Hawaiʻi. Ecology and Society 25(2):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11539-250226

Winter, K. B., T. Ticktin, and S. A. Quazi. 2020b. Biocultural restoration in Hawaiʻi also achieves core conservation goals. Ecology and Society 25(1):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11388-250126

Wyban, C. A. 1992. Tide and current: fishponds of Hawaiʻi. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Wyban, C. A. 2020. Tide and current: fishponds of Hawaʻi. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824886523

Yamamoto, M. N., T. Y. Iwai Jr., and A. W. Tagawa. 2015. Hawaiian anchialine pools. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.