Research, part of a special feature on Collaborative Management, Environmental Caretaking, and Sustainable Livelihoods

INTRODUCTION

The global “30x30” initiative aims to protect 30% of the world’s lands and oceans by the year 2030. These targets have intensified political drive and mobilized funding to establish marine management areas (MMAs) globally in order to achieve conservation goals (IUCN 2016). Although widespread global adoption of MMAs into marine management efforts offers an approach to preserve biodiversity, conservation-based restrictions can disproportionately impact communities that have long cared for and subsisted from the coastal resources where MMAs are established (Govan and Arju 2020). Furthermore, the success of MMAs can hinge upon the assistance and support of these same communities, creating a dichotomy in which particular communities are both potential victims and partners (Berkes 2007, Bennett and Dearden 2014). To make sound decisions that incorporate the importance of coastal resources to place-based communities, marine managers require approaches to understand and monitor how communities value, care for, and relate to the environment, as well as how these relationships are impacted by management actions. However, approaches to understanding socio-cultural impacts of management actions remain underdeveloped and are yet to be widely adopted in marine management (Kittinger et al. 2014, Scholte et al. 2015, Davies et al. 2018). Consequently, agency and collaborative marine management efforts often focus on purely ecological measures of success.

In Hawaiʻi, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) utilizes a range of ecological indicators to measure the efficacy of marine management strategies. Indicators such as coral cover, fish abundance and biomass, or macroalgae cover, are commonly used to measure the success of management projects (Juanes et al. 2008, Arias-González et al. 2010, Schmitter-Soto et al. 2018, Sangaji 2022). The objectives of these management projects are often guided by principles or underlying values that serve as a foundation for a system or policy, such as protecting native species or preserving biodiversity (Dale et al. 2000, DAR 2022). Indicators allow managers to measure their progress toward management principles or goals (Rice and Rochet 2005, Dacks et al. 2019, Bennett et al. 2021). Although ecological principles and indicators are crucial for achieving ecosystem objectives, they ignore the human dimensions of the communities tied to those ecosystems along with their underlying socio-cultural values (Cinner et al. 2014, Breslow et al. 2016, Ingram et al. 2020).

In an ecosystem services framework, the tangible and intangible benefits an ecosystem provides to stakeholders, and the importance that stakeholder groups place on those benefits, are defined as socio-cultural values (Scholte et al. 2015). We adapted this ecosystem services framework to the context of marine management and the communities tied to the spaces where management occurs. We define socio-cultural “principles” as the fundamental values or goals communities wish to perpetuate or enhance through management. Socio-cultural “indicators” are measurable factors used to describe the state of a principle.

The development and implementation of similarly framed socio-cultural principles and indicators have emerged in countries such as British Columbia, Canada (Burt et al. 2014), Indonesia (Green et al. 2020), and the Bahamas (Knowles et al. 2017). Table 1 outlines socio-cultural principles and indicators developed for other marine management initiatives around the world. Some locations also include economic and governance considerations. Each area used different approaches to develop and describe its goals (principles) and the metrics (indicators) used to reach each goal. As marine managers’ project purpose, scope, scale, and objectives vary, along with communities’ relationships and connections to place, a universal one-size-fits-all menu of principles and indicators is unlikely to be effective (Burt et al. 2014, Bennett et al. 2021). Community values and relationships with the environment are place-based and contextual, suggesting the need for socio-cultural monitoring programs to be developed collaboratively with local groups (Leong et al. 2019). Because marine managers differ in the extent to which they consider principles and indicators related to human dimensions, examples that center on social and cultural aspects of the marine environment can empower managers and communities to collaborate effectively.

Following the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) resolution establishing the global “30x30” goals, DAR began leading efforts to effectively manage Hawaiʻi’s nearshore waters through the Holomua Marine Initiative, which emphasizes community engagement and collaboration in the planning, implementation, and monitoring of island-based management strategies (DAR 2023). From the outset of the Holomua Marine Initiative, DAR identified their need to understand how communities value and relate to their nearshore environments. DAR decided to utilize a collaborative approach to develop socio-cultural principles and indicators, which will enable effective evaluation of management measures and their impacts on place-based communities over time. Collaborative arrangements in which government agencies and community groups share power and responsibility for both management and monitoring can enhance the effectiveness of marine management around the world (Pomeroy et al. 2001, Vaughan and Caldwell 2015, Winter et al. 2021). Communities benefit from more equitable distribution of rights, information, and decision-making power, while agency management incorporates in-depth knowledge of local ecosystems and benefits from higher compliance, reduced enforcement costs, and enhanced capacity for adaptive management (Jentoft 2005, Gelcich et al. 2010, DeRoy et al. 2019). Although collaborative management and monitoring may bring benefits to coastal communities and resources, it is understandable that community members may be wary of engaging in collaborative arrangements because of injustices and displacement of coastal communities stemming from conservation-focused policy.

The restrictive regulations often accompanying the implementation of MMAs have resulted in inequitable situations with negative impacts on indigenous communities that rely on small-scale fishing and subsistence harvesting, both of which are common Kanaka ʻŌiwi (Native Hawaiian) cultural practices (Grafeld et al. 2017, Govan and Arju 2020). In Hawaiʻi, marine ecosystems hold deep cultural significance. For instance, the Kanaka ʻŌiwi creation chant, the Kumulipo, describes the coral polyp (koʻa) as the source of all life, including the Hawaiian people (Liliuokalani et al. 1978). Kanaka ʻŌiwi are not the only demographic in Hawaiʻi with profound ties to the ocean; similar relationships permeate through Hawaiʻi’s multicultural communities, which are often intrinsically connected to marine environments through livelihoods, food, subsistence, and a diverse assemblage of cultural practices (Grafeld et al. 2017, Vaughan 2018). Furthermore, these relationships with the environment continue to support the perpetuation of family history, community relationships, and culture (Vaughan and Vitousek 2013). Many in Hawaiʻi conceptualize how important their ties to the environment are by viewing their connection with marine ecosystems as reciprocal relationships, in which those supported by the environment are ethically responsible for caring for, restoring, and protecting it; Hawaiian culture reflects this through kuleana, or responsibility, to the environment and community (Vaughan 2018, Diver et al. 2019, Gould et al. 2019).

To maintain and strengthen reciprocal relations, individuals and communities must be able to benefit from, care for, and give back to the places and ecosystems to which they relate (Diver et al. 2019). Policies that impinge on the necessary components of reciprocal relationships can sever those relationships and, in doing so, disturb the framework that provides the social and cultural benefits mentioned previously. Collaboration allows communities to incorporate the perpetuation of their relationships with the environment directly into the decision-making processes that might otherwise threaten those relationships; it also mitigates the potential for marine management policies to harm communities’ relationships to place (Berkes 2007, Bennett et al. 2017, Davies et al. 2018). Through collaborative efforts, DAR hopes to enhance the communities’ relationships with the nearshore environment. DAR intends to incorporate socio-cultural indicators into its monitoring programs to understand how their policies affect community-place relationships and assess how those relationships might change over time.

In this project, we aimed to develop socio-cultural principles and indicators for DAR and the Holomua Marine Initiative to use in the planning and monitoring of existing and new MMAs throughout Hawaiʻi. We worked with Hawaiʻi community leaders and non-governmental organization (NGO) partners to articulate community-centric socio-cultural principles and indicators. Our team approached the development process through the lens of communities’ place-based reciprocal relationships with the environment. By acknowledging those reciprocal relationships and developing a socio-cultural monitoring framework, we aimed to help DAR understand how communities care for their nearshore marine areas and how management strategies can affect communities’ social and cultural connections with the nearshore environment.

METHODS

Our core research team includes three graduate students and two staff from the University of Hawaiʻi (UH) at Mānoa, three DAR employees, and one conservation NGO staff member. Multiple team members are also cultural practitioners, ocean users, and community members. Three are Native Hawaiian. Our team designed a series of workshops to develop socio-cultural principles and indicators in collaboration with community leaders. Workshops are a common method for developing principles and indicators in natural resource management because they allow in-depth discussions about stakeholders’ and participants’ values, needs, and priorities (Pascua et al. 2017, Sterling et al. 2017a, Dacks et al. 2019). Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the workshops, which included many elders, were held online for participants’ safety. Before the formal workshops, we conducted a practice workshop with UH undergraduate and graduate students serving as participants to test the effectiveness of the planned activities and prompts. Based on feedback from students and facilitators, we revised the agenda and activities to improve the subsequent community workshops.

We conducted four online workshops between 22 April 2021, and 18 May 2021, three to develop draft principles and indicators, then a fourth to get feedback from all participants. The initial three development workshops focused on understanding communities’ reciprocal relationships with marine ecosystems in Hawaiʻi. These relationships were the basis of the developed socio-cultural principles and indicators. We organized the initial three development workshops by islands based on population to balance the number of participants and optimize engagement. These three workshops focused on (1) Oʻahu Island, (2) Kauaʻi and Hawaiʻi Islands, and (3) Maui Nui, which include the islands of Maui, Lānaʻi, and Molokaʻi. The fourth feedback workshop, conducted on 18 May 2021, presented the proposed socio-cultural principles and indicators developed from the initial workshops for feedback from all original participants. All workshops were held over Zoom and lasted approximately 2.5 hours. Facilitators, including both DAR and UH staff and graduate students, each had some training in meeting facilitation. To help ensure accurate tracking of each participant’s contributions, we recorded each workshop and transcribed the recordings verbatim using Otter.ai software.

Approximately 7–12 participants joined each workshop, with 30 combined overall (Oʻahu = 12, Kauaʻi = 3, Hawaiʻi Island = 8, Maui Nui=7). Workshop participants were selected based on their longstanding connections and existing collaborative efforts with DAR, or their high level of demonstrated involvement in community-based management, stewardship, or education in nearshore ecosystems. We emphasized recruiting members who were Native Hawaiian or born and raised in the Hawaiian Islands. We used purposive sampling to identify potential participants from each island (Creswell et al. 2007); utilizing DAR contact lists and multiple nonprofit and community networks to invite workshop participation via email or text message for those not active on email. Our outreach materials included background information on the study and an informed consent document following the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol. The University of Hawaiʻi IRB approved this research under protocol 2021-00088.

Approximately 74% of the development workshop participants were members of community-based stewardship or educational organizations, 13% were from local conservation NGOs, 10% were affiliated with the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and the remainder were prominent community members representing other important stakeholder groups such as fishers and cultural practitioners. Many participants represented more than one stakeholder group. For example, several attendees involved with a stewardship organization also identified themselves as fishers or cultural practitioners, and multiple student participants were also community members or NGO employees. Participants were approximately 55% female and 45% male, ranging from 20 to 80 years of age. Ethnicities represented in workshops included Native Hawaiian, Caucasian, and Asian, with a majority identifying as multi-racial.

We opened all the workshops with a Hawaiian oli, or chant, a common way to start a gathering in Hawaiʻi by asking for guidance and permission from akua (Gods) and ancestors. To allow participants to get to know each other personally and create a more comfortable space, we started the meeting dialog with the question, “What is your favorite food from the ocean and why?” When asking for answers to our discussion questions, we used Zoom breakout rooms to place participants in smaller groups of two to four participants. For a full agenda of the development workshops, see Appendix 1.

We began the discussion breakout rooms with introductions and a visioning exercise to get participants to envision the nearshore place they are connected to or find personally meaningful. This question began with the prompt, “Think about a coastal, nearshore place on (island name) that is important to you. Close your eyes or look out a nearby window and envision this place,” which was followed by a series of questions including “What does it look like? What can you hear? Smell? What do you feel?” After the visioning exercise, we asked a series of prompts and questions to facilitate deeper discussions on the reciprocal relationships participants held with the nearshore environment, such as “How does that coastal nearshore place enrich the lives of your ʻohana (family) and community?”

Participants shared their answers using methods from previous studies that facilitate workshop discussions, which include “snow cards,” a technique involving the listing and grouping of ideas (Pascua et al. 2017), and free listing (Dacks et al. 2019). We adapted these approaches to an online setting by having participants respond using Mural, an online interactive application. Mural allowed for anonymous responses, participation by multiple individuals at one time, and flexibility in how and when participants presented and organized their answers. Our team used workshop transcripts to analyze participant responses through an iterative coding process in Atlas.ti (Creswell et al. 2007, Miles et al. 2019). This technique utilizes an inductive data analysis process that builds codes, categories, and themes by organizing data from multiple sources into abstract information units. We inputted the transcript data and wrote memos (short phrases, ideas, or key concepts) to start the initial process of exploring the data. Team members then used the software to describe, classify, and interpret the transcript data by forming codes (labels attached to data units that assign symbolic meaning). We formed codes based on categories identified by participants during the workshops. After coding, we translated the data into socio-cultural principles with associated indicators for each (Figs. 1 and 2).

The fourth feedback workshop had 16 participants from the original development workshops. After beginning the workshop with cultural protocol (oli) and an opening question, we introduced and explained each proposed principle, two at a time, along with their associated indicators. Participants offered feedback in smaller breakout groups using Mural, and then we presented each group’s input to the collective. Our team repeated this process until all principles and indicators were presented and discussed. For a full agenda of the feedback workshop, see Appendix 2.

RESULTS

Community participants collaboratively created nine socio-cultural principles through the four workshops, with 6 to 15 corresponding indicators each, totaling 61 indicators. The nine socio-cultural principles developed are shown in Table 2, along with a few examples of corresponding indicators, which we reduced to avoid duplication. Indicators are not listed in any particular order. For a full list of indicators developed from the workshops, see Appendix 3.

Participants in each of the three development workshops independently generated similar principles, though they came from different islands, each with its own unique cultural practices, coastal issues and environments. In the fourth feedback workshop, participants also largely agreed with the proposed principles and indicators. Feedback from participants was similar regardless of which island they were from or which development workshop they participated in. Based on participant feedback in workshop four, we adjusted the phrasing of one socio-cultural principle to articulate community objectives more clearly and enhance applicability across places. The original principle to “maintain and enhance local access and quality of experience in the nearshore area” was reworded to “ensure appropriate access and sustain the quality of experience in the nearshore area.” Several community members shared that “enhancing” access is not always beneficial to the resources of a place or the people who depend upon them. In addition, participants also added a supplementary principle urging government agencies to “utilize transparent and collaborative processes to address impacts to the nearshore area,” along with a few indicators to measure the new principle. This principle provides a way to evaluate government agencies, along with the socio-cultural impacts of their management.

Participants also emphasized the overlapping nature of the different aspects of their relationships with nearshore areas. Principles are thus interdependent and connected, which is also reflected in the repetition of some indicators across principles. Participants often found it difficult to distinguish boundaries between principles because many depend upon one another. For example, appropriate access is a necessary condition for most of the other principles such as education across generations, strengthening well-being, support for family and community relationships, along with maintaining resources and habitat that provide food; all of which depend upon the ability to be in a place. Empowering community caretaking efforts in turn depends upon education and perpetuation of place-based pono (balanced, correct, mutually beneficial, e.g., taking only what you need) knowledge and practices. Principles are interconnected and positive improvements in certain principles are likely to be associated with positive changes in others, meaning that measuring progress in a few of the principles might suggest progress in others, which are more difficult to measure.

DISCUSSION

In this research, we engaged community leaders, fishers, cultural practitioners, conservationists, and managers together to articulate principles and indicators to guide and measure the effectiveness of marine management. Where management goals and indicators of success are often solely ecological, we focused on articulating the social and cultural impacts of management. This process resulted in nine principles articulating potential outcomes of effective marine management for communities and their relationships with nearshore areas. Community members also identified over 60 indicators that could be used to measure these principles. Here we reflect on three findings from this process. First, we identify multiple process lessons that could be useful in other places seeking to develop and measure the social and cultural impacts of management. Second, principles articulated by participants in this study, are similar to those developed in other studies, suggesting that some principles might be useful across places with similar histories and colonial legacies. Third, despite similarities across locales, place-based processes to develop socio-cultural monitoring are still vital in order to reflect values and perspectives of local communities. Place-based knowledge is essential to interpret and measure progress toward these principles, and there is a need to adapt and simplify indicators to keep monitoring and measurement from becoming overly burdensome on communities.

Implications for processes to develop socio-cultural indicators

For our workshops, we utilized purposive sampling to identify individuals who hold strong reciprocal relationships with nearshore areas. We intentionally sought out participants who identified as Native Hawaiian or who were born and raised in the Hawaiian Islands, along with individuals engaged in caring for coastal areas. Programs or agencies seeking to create socio-cultural principles and indicators could also identify key participants based on longstanding and in-depth relationships with their environment, and involvement in caretaking efforts, including engagement in collaborative management.

Beginning workshops with cultural protocols appropriate to place was necessary to engage participants. We started our workshops with an oli (chant), followed by an opening question that all participants could answer as equals, before identifying their work affiliations that set social hierarchies (Carey and Markus 2017). Our approach, grounded in indigenous research methods and traditions of “talk-story,” allowed participants to share their relationships with their coastal home area, finding commonalities, instead of focusing on who were government employees, researchers, or fisherpeople, avoiding manager-community conflicts that can prevent successful collaboration (Au and Kawakami 1985, Sletto 2008, Powell et al. 2018, Harangody et al. 2022). In a place like Hawaiʻi, where people can perceive state government institutions as an extension of illegal occupation by a foreign force (Sai 2004, 2008), meetings focused narrowly on agency management proposals often engender distrust (Bennett and Dearden 2014, Delgado-Serrano 2017). Following indigenous protocol, offering time for talk story and dialogue (Harangody et al. 2022), then crafting principles and indicators based on responses to open-ended questions, has potential to create space for inclusive and productive participation.

Comparison of socio-cultural principles to previous studies

The principles and indicators identified through our workshops reflect previously developed socio-cultural principles and indicators from similar research conducted within Hawaiʻi and the central Pacific (Pascua et al. 2017, Sterling et al. 2017b, Leong et al. 2019, Dacks et al. 2019; Table 3). Terminology varied across studies, for example, with “attributes” or “factors” being used in place of “principles.” However, the actual content of principles supports key themes from other research, such as the importance of perpetuating local and indigenous knowledge across generations, and access to land and natural resources (Table 3). These topics also appear in studies from other parts of the world, such as British Columbia and the Bahamas (Burt et al. 2014, Knowles et al. 2017; Table 1).

The theme of protecting and maintaining local access to land, water, and other natural resources emerges in other communities where legacy impacts of colonialism challenge continued reciprocal relationships with coastal ecosystems. In Hawaiʻi for example, ongoing occupation by the United States of America enables foreign acquisition of coastal lands for private use, cutting off access for subsistence fishing and other cultural practice (Panarella 1998, Akutagawa and Baldauf 2013, Vaughan 2018). Capitalism and neocolonialism continue to displace indigenous coastal communities around the world, for example, in Northern Australia, Brazil, and Chile (Barreau et al. 2016, Constantino 2016, Annandale et al. 2021, Duarte et al. 2023). Foreign land ownership, corporate ventures such as commercial aquaculture farms, and the establishment of marine protected areas funded largely by Western governments and NGOs, can all prevent local communities from accessing and caring for their traditional lands and seascapes (Barreau et al. 2016, Constantino 2016, Annandale et al. 2021, Duarte et al. 2023). Principles emphasizing increased community access along with more decentralized governance, may be powerful wherever community organizations are working to correct legacies of injustice. At the same time, collaboratively developed management areas, with rules allowing traditional and customary uses, can enhance community access, care and governance, alongside ecosystem abundance (Cinner et al. 2014, Vaughan 2018, Winter et al. 2023).

Many coastal communities worldwide also face precipitous loss of their indigenous knowledge, language, and culture (Townsend 2014, Barreau et al. 2016, Stocker et al. 2016, Edgar et al. 2022). Similarly, the importance of perpetuating traditional ecological knowledge across generations is applicable across the Pacific (Pascua et al. 2017, Sterling et al. 2017b, Leong et al. 2019, Dacks et al. 2019) and beyond. This research suggests that locally based educational programs that connect elders and youth, and engage entire families in traditional harvest and practices, could be a measurable indicator of the success of MMAs and other management efforts. Although in this case principles and indicators were developed through a place-based approach, their similarity to those developed through similar processes in other contexts may suggest widespread importance of certain fundamental socio-cultural principles. Although these more universal socio-cultural principles may be applicable in diverse locations across the world, it is still vital for local communities and managers to adapt principles to their own setting and environment.

The importance of place-based principles and participation

This project demonstrated the importance of place-specific ecological knowledge and experiences, which are constantly changing with local conditions. Participants brought in-depth, cross-generational knowledge of coastal environments, along with comprehensive assessments of their current conditions, based upon spending time in the areas they harvest and care for. For example, the importance of managing tourism emerged as a key current threat to reciprocal relationships with coastal areas in Hawaiʻi, though less articulated in other efforts to develop socio-cultural principles for coastal management in the Pacific. From 2009 to 2019, annual visitor counts to Hawaiʻi rose from approximately 6.5 to 10.4 million, a record 59% increase over a decade (Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority 2009, 2019). Although increasing tourism has contributed substantially to Hawaiʻi’s economy, the number of visitors has significant ecological and socio-cultural impacts (Liu and Var 1986, Needham et al. 2008, Spencer et al. 2020). A case study conducted on the east side of Oʻahu revealed that over 65% of resident survey respondents agreed that tourism had increased traffic, increased the cost of living, and additionally expressed that they felt “worried,” “irritated,” or “outraged” by the presence of tourists in their community (Spencer et al. 2020). As tourism grows to drive coastal economies worldwide, conflicts will increase between recreational and subsistence users, eroding long-standing community relationships with inshore areas (Needham et al. 2008). Taking time to collaboratively identify current conditions for a given area can reveal critical threats and management needs that drive place-based principles and indicators.

Collaboratively developed socio-cultural monitoring programs offer pathways to assess historically neglected aspects of coastal management impacts (Jentoft 2005, DeRoy et al. 2019, Ingram et al. 2020). However, socio-cultural monitoring requires continual community involvement, not just in the initial development of principles and indicators, but in the refinement and monitoring (Lincoln et al. 2018, Bennett et al. 2021). Our workshops resulted in a total of 61 proposed indicators, too many for managers or community partners to measure in multiple locations (Rosenström et al. 2006). Different indicators, applicable to a given context and place, could be used to measure the same universal principle in diverse ways across geographies. Each indicator’s applicability, relevance, and interpretation may vary depending on the context and values of the place-specific communities where monitoring will occur (Dacks et al. 2019, Leong et al. 2019).

Measuring changes in indicators needed to evaluate progress on most of these principles relies upon in-depth knowledge of a particular place (Vaughan 2018, Leong et al. 2019, Winter et al. 2023). For example, not all community members, and certainly not visitors, would be able to provide useful insight on whether a place is providing the surrounding community with food, or whether traditional fishing and gathering practices are being perpetuated. Therefore, collaboration between resource managers and the appropriate community members must continue well beyond identifying socio-cultural principles and indicators, and include opportunities for reflection and discussion on the socio-cultural monitoring program (Bennett et al. 2021). Collaboration takes time and effort, and community members should be compensated for their needed contributions. In addition, processes to develop holistic indicators for monitoring should not be overly burdensome for communities, and should build upon other collaborative management efforts rather than replacing or detracting from past work (Cadiz 2017).

CONCLUSION

Globalized approaches to conservation position many indigenous communities to carry the burdens of environmental initiatives planned from industrialized nations. Resource management should not solely focus on conservation or biodiversity targets, but also integrate human well-being objectives grounded in social and cultural dimensions. With 30x30 campaigns accelerating and much debated worldwide, collaborative creation of socio-cultural principles and indicators may offer means to not only formally consider, but also shift how management acknowledges and views their impacts on community relationships with the environment. Socio-cultural principles articulate community visions for social and ecological health of natural resources, or desired collective goals for resource management. Adopting target objectives such as perpetuating place-based knowledge and practices, maintaining family relationships, or empowering community caretaking efforts, alongside biodiversity targets, fundamentally changes management approaches. Comprehensive, interdisciplinary frameworks that include indicators linked to socio-cultural outcomes alongside ecological measures may help to inform more effective resource management that is inclusive of diverse identities, cultures, and value systems throughout the world. By engaging communities in assessing progress toward collective principles, socio-cultural monitoring has potential to further strengthen perpetual, reciprocal, and caretaking relationships between people and place.

LITERATURE CITED

Akutagawa, M., and N. Baldauf. 2013. Hoʻi Hou I Ka Iwikuamoʻo: a legal primer for the protection of Iwi Kūpuna in Hawaiʻi Nei. Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Annandale, M., J. Meadows, and P. Erskine. 2021. Indigenous forest livelihoods and bauxite mining: a case-study from northern Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 294:113014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113014

Arias-González, J., E. Núñez-Lara, F. Rodríguez-Zaragoza, and P. Legendre. 2010. Reefscape proxies for the conservation of Caribbean coral reef biodiversity. Ciencias Marinas 37(1):87-96. https://doi.org/10.7773/cm.v37i1.1746

Au, K. H., and A. J. Kawakami. 1985. Research currents: talk story and learning to read. Language Arts 62(4):406-411.

Barreau, A., J. T. Ibarra, F. S. Wyndham, A. Rojas, and R. A. Kozak. 2016. How can we teach our children if we cannot access the forest? Generational change in Mapuche knowledge of wild edible plants in Andean temperate ecosystems of Chile. Journal of Ethnobiology 36(2):412-432. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-36.2.412

Bennett, N. J., and P. Dearden. 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy 44:107-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017

Bennett, N. J., A. Schuhbauer, D. Skerritt, and N. Ebrahim. 2021. Socio-economic monitoring and evaluation in fisheries. Fisheries Research 239:105934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2021.105934

Bennett, N. J., L. Teh, Y. Ota, P. Christie, A. Ayers, J. C. Day, P. Franks, D. Gill, R. L. Gruby, J. N. Kittinger, J. Z. Koehn, N. Lewis, J. Parks, M. Vierros, T. S. Whitty, A. Wilhelm, K. Wright, J. A. Aburto, E. M. Finkbeiner, C. F. Gaymer, H. Govan, N. Gray, R. M. Jarvis, M. Kaplan-Hallam, and T. Satterfield. 2017. An appeal for a code of conduct for marine conservation. Marine Policy 81:411-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.035

Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39):15188-15193. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702098104

Breslow, S. J., B. Sojka, R. Barnea, X. Basurto, C. Carothers, S. Charnley, S. Coulthard, N. Dolšak, J. Donatuto, C. García-Quijano, C. C. Hicks, A. Levine, M. B. Mascia, K. Norman, M. Poe, T. Satterfield, K. St. Martin, and P. S. Levin. 2016. Conceptualizing and operationalizing human wellbeing for ecosystem assessment and management. Environmental Science & Policy 66:250-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.023

Burt, J., P. Akins, E. Latham, M. Beck, A. Salomon, and N. Ban. 2014. Marine protected area network design features that support resilient human-ocean systems: applications for British Columbia, Canada. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Cadiz, E. A. 2017. Pilina — Mālama — ʻĀina Momona a community-driven monitoring program to understand health and well-being of people and place in Hāʻena, Kauaʻi. Thesis. University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Carey, R. M., and H. R. Markus. 2017. Social class shapes the form and function of relationships and selves. Current Opinion in Psychology 18:123-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.031

Cinner, J. E., T. Daw, C. Huchery, P. Thoya, A. Wamukota, M. Cedras, and C. Abunge. 2014. Winners and losers in marine conservation: fishers’ displacement and livelihood benefits from marine reserves. Society & Natural Resources 27(9):994-1005. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.918229

Constantino, P. A. L. 2016. Deforestation and hunting effects on wildlife across Amazonian indigenous lands. Ecology and Society 21(2):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08323-210203

Creswell, J. W., W. E. Hanson, V. L. Clark Plano, and A. Morales. 2007. Qualitative research designs: selection and implementation. Counseling Psychologist 35(2):236-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390

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

Dale, V. H., S. Brown, R. A. Haeuber, N. T. Hobbs, N. Huntly, R. J. Naiman, W. E. Riebsame, M. G. Turner, and T. J. Valone. 2000. Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological Applications 10(3):639-670. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641032

Davies, K., A. A. Murchie, V. Kerr, and C. Lundquist. 2018. The evolution of marine protected area planning in Aotearoa New Zealand: reflections on participation and process. Marine Policy 93:113-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.025

Delgado-Serrano, M. M. 2017. Trade-offs between conservation and development in community-based management initiatives. International Journal of the Commons 11(2):969-991. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.792

DeRoy, B. C., C. T. Darimont, and C. N. Service. 2019. Biocultural indicators to support locally led environmental management and monitoring. Ecology and Society 24(4):21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11120-240421

Diver, S., M. Vaughan, M. Baker-Médard, and H. Lukacs. 2019. Recognizing “reciprocal relations” to restore community access to land and water. International Journal of the Commons 13(1):400-429. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.881

Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR). 2022. Holomua: Marine 30x30. Hawaiʻi Division of Aquatic Resources, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR). 2023. What is Holomua? Hawaiʻi Division of Aquatic Resources, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Duarte, D. P., C. A. Peres, E. F. C. Perdomo, A. Guizar-Coutiño, and B. W. Nelson. 2023. Reducing natural vegetation loss in Amazonia critically depends on the formal recognition of indigenous lands. Biological Conservation 279:109936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109936

Edgar, B. A., M. P. Eva, and K. S. Lee. 2022. Disappearance of African indigenous knowledge of water conservation and management in Limpopo Province of South Africa: an IKS perspective. African Journal of Development Studies 12(2).

Gelcich, S., T. P. Hughes, P. Olsson, C. Folke, O. Defeo, M. Fernández, S. Foale, L. H. Gunderson, C. Rodríguez-Sickert, M. Scheffer, R. S. Steneck, and J. C. Castilla. 2010. Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(39):16794-16799. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012021107

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(5):1213-1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00721-9

Govan, H., and M. Arju. 2020. ʻ30 by 30’ is a distraction, keep the focus on indigenous and locally-led holistic ocean stewardship. ICCA Consortium, Genolier, Switzerland.

Grafeld, S., K. L. L. Oleson, L. Teneva, and J. N. Kittinger. 2017. Follow that fish: uncovering the hidden blue economy in coral reef fisheries. PLOS ONE 12(8):e0182104. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182104

Green, A. L., Y. Fajariyanto, H. Lionata, F. Ramadyan, S. Tighe, A. White, T. Gunawan, M. Rudyanto, and N. Minarputi. 2020. A guide, framework and example- designing marine protected areas and marine protected area networks to benefit people and nature in Indonesia. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) for the USAID Sustainable Ecosystems Advanced Project.

Harangody, M., M. Blaich Vaughan, L. S. Richmond, and K. Kilikina Luebbe. 2022. Hālana ka manaʻo: place-based connection as a source of long-term resilience. Ecology and Society 27(4):21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13555-270421

Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority. 2009. 2009 Annual Visitor Research Report. Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority. 2019. 2019 Annual Visitor Research Report. Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Ingram, R. J., K. M. Leong, J. Gove, and S. Wongbusarakum. 2020. Including human well-being in resource management with cultural ecosystem services. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-112, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. Increasing marine protected area coverage for effective marine biodiversity conservation. World Conservation Congress Resolution, Hawaiʻi. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/resrecfiles/WCC_2016_RES_050_EN.pdf

Jentoft, S. 2005. Fisheries co-management as empowerment. Marine Policy 29(1):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2004.01.003

Juanes, J. A., X. Guinda, A. Puente, and J. A. Revilla. 2008. Macroalgae, a suitable indicator of the ecological status of coastal rocky communities in the NE Atlantic. Ecological Indicators 8(4):351-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.04.005

Kittinger, J. N., J. Z. Koehn, E. Le Cornu, N. C. Ban, M. Gopnik, M. Armsby, C. Brooks, M. H. Carr, J. E. Cinner, A. Cravens, M. D’Iorio, A. Erickson, E. M. Finkbeiner, M. M. Foley, R. Fujita, S. Gelcich, K. S. Martin, E. Prahler, D. R. Reineman, J. Shackeroff, C. White, M. R. Caldwell, and L. B. Crowder. 2014. A practical approach for putting people in ecosystem-based ocean planning. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12(8):448-456. https://doi.org/10.1890/130267

Knowles, J. E., A. L. Green, C. Dahlgren, F. Arnett, and F. Knowles. 2017. Expanding The Bahamas marine protected area network to protect 20% of the marine and coastal environment by 2020: a gap analysis. The Nature Conservancy under the Bahamas Protected Project, Nassau, The Bahamas.

Leong, K. M., S. Wongbusarakum, R. J. Ingram, A. Mawyer, and M. R. Poe. 2019. Improving representation of human well-being and cultural importance in conceptualizing the West Hawaiʻi ecosystem. Frontiers in Marine Science 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00231

Liliuokalani, K. I. Mamao, and A. Wahine. 1978. The Kumulipo: an Hawaiian creation myth. Pueo, San Francisco, California, USA.

Lincoln, N., J. Rossen, P. Vitousek, J. Kahoonei, D. Shapiro, K. Kalawe, M. Pai, K. Marshall, and K. Meheula. 2018. Restoration of ʻĀina Maloʻo on Hawaiʻi Island: expanding biocultural relationships. Sustainability 10(11):3985. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113985

Liu, J. C., and T. Var. 1986. Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research 13(2):193-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(86)90037-X

Miles, M., M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2019. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. Fourth edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Needham, M. D., J. F. Tynon, R. L. Ceurvorst, R. L. Collins, W. M. Connor, and M. J. W. Culnane. 2008. Recreation carrying capacity and management at Pupukea Marine Life Conservation District on Oahu, Hawaii. Final project report for Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and Natural Resources. Oregon State University, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Panarella, S. 1998. Not in My Backyard “Pash v HPC”: the clash between Native Hawaiian gathering rights and Western concepts of property in Hawaii. Environmental Law 28(2):467-486.

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

Pomeroy, R. S., B. M. Katon, and I. Harkes. 2001. Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co-management: lessons from Asia. Marine Policy 25(3):197-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00010-0

Powell, E. E., R. Hamann, V. Bitzer, and T. Baker. 2018. Bringing the elephant into the room? Enacting conflict in collective prosocial organizing. Journal of Business Venturing 33(5):623-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.11.006

Rice, J. C., and M.-J. Rochet. 2005. A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62(3):516-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.003

Rosenström, U., P. Mickwitz, and M. Melanen. 2006. Participation and empowerment-based development of socio-cultural indicators supporting regional decision-making for eco-efficiency. Local Environment 11(2):183-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830600558515

Sai, D. K. 2004. American occupation of the Hawaiian State: a century unchecked. Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics 1:46-81.

Sai, D. K. 2008. The American occupation of The Hawaiian Kingdom: beginning the transition from occupied to restored state. Dissertation. University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Sangaji, M. 2022. Macroalgae abundance and cover as ecological indicators of coral reef management in the waters of Katapang Village, West Seram Regency, Maluku Province. International Journal of Science and Environment 2(4):121-126. https://doi.org/10.51601/ijse.v2i4.47

Schmitter-Soto, J. J., A. Aguilar-Perera, A. Cruz-Martínez, R. L. Herrera-Pavón, A. A. Morales-Aranda, and D. Cobián-Rojas. 2018. Interdecadal trends in composition, density, size, and mean trophic level of fish species and guilds before and after coastal development in the Mexican Caribbean. Biodiversity and Conservation 27(2):459-474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1446-1

Scholte, S. S. K., A. J. A. van Teeffelen, and P. H. Verburg. 2015. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics 114:67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007

Sletto, B. 2008. The knowledge that counts: institutional identities, policy science, and the conflict over fire management in the Gran Sabana, Venezuela. World Development 36(10):1938-1955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.02.008

Spencer, D., L. Lesar, B. Szuster, and D. Eversole. 2020. Socio-economic impacts of tourism in Kailua and Waimanalo, Hawaii. A contribution to the Windward Oʻahu Tourism Assessment. UNIHISEAGRANT-TT-20-04. University of Hawai‘i Sea Grant College Program, Honolulu, Hawai‘i, 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. de 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. 2017b. Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1(12):1798-1806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0349-6

Sterling, E., T. Ticktin, T. K. K. Morgan, G. Cullman, D. Alvira, P. Andrade, N. Bergamini, E. Betley, K. Burrows, S. Caillon, J. Claudet, R. Dacks, P. Eyzaguirre, C. Filardi, N. Gazit, C. Giardina, S. Jupiter, K. Kinney, J. McCarter, M. Mejia, K. Morishige, J. Newell, L. Noori, J. Parks, P. Pascua, A. Ravikumar, J. Tanguay, A. Sigouin, T. Stege, M. Stege, and A. Wali. 2017a. Culturally grounded indicators of resilience in social-ecological systems. Environment and Society 8(1):63-95. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2017.080104

Stocker, L., L. Collard, and A. Rooney. 2016. Aboriginal world views and colonisation: implications for coastal sustainability. Local Environment 21(7):844-865. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1036414

Townsend, C. K. M. 2014. Impacts of Hawaiian language loss and promotion via the linguistic landscape. Dissertation. University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Vaughan, M. B. 2018. Kaiāulu: gathering tides. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. https://doi.org/10.1353/book61441

Vaughan, M. B., and M. R. Caldwell. 2015. Hana Paʻa: challenges and lessons for early phases of co-management. Marine Policy 62:51-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.07.005

Vaughan, M. B., and P. M. Vitousek. 2013. Mahele: sustaining communities through small-scale inshore fishery catch and sharing networks. Pacific Science 67(3):329-344. https://doi.org/10.2984/67.3.3

Winter, K. B., M. B. Vaughan, N. Kurashima, C. Giardina, K. Quiocho, K. Chang, M. Akutagawa, K. Beamer, and F. Berkes. 2021. Empowering indigenous agency through community-driven collaborative management to achieve effective conservation: Hawaiʻi as an example. Pacific Conservation Biology 27:337-344. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC20009

Winter, K. B., M. B. Vaughan, N. Kurashima, L. Wann, E. Cadiz, A. H. Kawelo, M. Cypher, L. Kaluhiwa, and H. K. Springer. 2023. Indigenous stewardship through novel approaches to collaborative management in Hawaiʻi. Ecology and Society 28(1):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13662-280126

Copyright © 2024 by the author(s). Published here under license by The Resilience Alliance. This article is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You may share and adapt the work provided the original author and source are credited, you indicate whether any changes were made, and you include a link to the license.