Research

INTRODUCTION

Scholars, practitioners, and national and international policies are increasingly calling for inclusion of local and Indigenous Knowledge and culture in natural resource management (e.g., Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Poe et al. 2014, Rist et al. 2019, Wiktor-Mach 2020, United States 2022). However, consistent metrics to ensure local and Indigenous culture is included in the assessment of achieving social outcomes have yet to be established as a regular part of research and management practice (Charnley et al. 2017, Williams et al. 2021). Related to these changing norms of management culture, social scientists of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, NOAA Fisheries) in the Pacific Islands have been receiving requests for cultural attributes of marine species to include in marine management models. Economic market and use-based instrumental metrics (e.g., value of fish landed, number of fishers participating) are regularly measured and these values are often included in models as proxies for culture, in the absence of metrics for non-market instrumental, intrinsic, and relational values, such as contributions to subsistence, heritage, and generational knowledge (Weijerman et al. 2021, Pascual et al. 2022). In other cases, expert opinion has been used to assess which species should be considered culturally important without specifying how cultural importance is operationalized (e.g., Giddens et al. 2022). To assist others navigating similar situations, we explored implications of filling requests for cultural attributes of marine species by examining one source of cultural knowledge in Hawaiʻi, foundational Hawaiian texts.

NOAA is the federal agency charged with conserving and managing U.S. marine ecosystems and resources. NOAA Fisheries is the line office within the agency that is responsible for fisheries management (https://www.noaa.gov/our-mission-and-vision), with jurisdiction over waters within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), spanning from the seaward boundary of state territorial waters to 200 nautical miles. Treaties that the U.S. maintains with Tribes and foundational laws include language that directs the agency to address human reliance on and cultural relationships with marine resources (e.g., Coastal Zone Management Act 1972, Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972, National Marine Sanctuaries Act 1972, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1976), however management has focused more on ecological and economic outcomes than other types of social and cultural outcomes, as is common in marine management more broadly (Breslow et al. 2016, Hicks et al. 2016). Recent policies also charge U.S. federal agencies with incorporating ecosystem services, including cultural benefits, and Indigenous Knowledge into federal decision-making processes (Executive Order 13985 2021, United States 2015, 2021, 2022). As a result, NOAA has drawn on established natural resource frameworks that explicitly acknowledge culture, but is exploring with partners how to broaden understanding of cultural meaning in marine management (Leong et al. 2019, Winter et al. 2020a, Office of Hawaiian Affairs et al. 2021, Hawaiʻi Institute of Marine Biology 2023).

Frameworks that examine cultural dimensions

Many established frameworks are heavily based on ecosystem services as initially defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), which include cultural ecosystem services (CES) as one of the four main categories of services. CES are defined as “... the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences ...” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005:40). For example, fishing has been established as an important way of life that includes benefits such as food security and economic livelihoods, as well as heritage, identity, cultural knowledge, spirituality, and sense of place (Maly and Maly 2003a, Kittinger et al. 2014, Seara et al. 2017, Donkersloot et al. 2020, Gibson et al. 2022). Yet fishing is often measured by applied ecosystem scientists as an anthropogenic pressure that degrades marine ecosystems rather than a process within social-ecological systems (Tam et al. 2017). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment acknowledges that these types of services are difficult to measure (2005). Because they are explicitly defined as nonmaterial benefits, some have argued they cannot be measured or should not be measured; however, this runs the risk of excluding them from management considerations (Turner et al. 2008, Leong et al. 2019). Recognition is now growing for the need to acknowledge and regularly measure reciprocal relationships between nature and culture, which may include both material and nonmaterial aspects (Kelble et al. 2013, Poe et al. 2014, Leong et al. 2019, Carothers et al. 2021). Although many valuation approaches are emerging and have been explored, developing standardized approaches that are appropriate across culturally specific contexts has been challenging (Pascual et al. 2022).

The conventional top-down approach to cultural inclusion also runs counter to bottom-up, biocultural approaches that are emerging through place-based research as an alternate policy model central to ensuring sustainable and effective natural resource management systems (e.g., Sterling et al. 2017, Winter et al. 2020a). Biocultural approaches to conservation that build on Indigenous perspectives are inherently place-based and include values, types of knowledge, and needs, as well as feedback loops between natural resources and human well-being (Gavin et al. 2015, Sterling et al. 2017, Winter et al. 2018a, Winter et al. 2020b). As such, they emphasize understanding not only the material or tangible uses of natural resources by diverse groups of people, but also the importance of those resources to interconnectedness and nonmaterial or intangible cultural heritage, defined as the “... practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills - as well as the instruments, objects, artifacts, and cultural spaces associated therewith - that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage” (UNESCO 2022:5). Intangible cultural heritage is transmitted from generation to generation and is constantly recreated through interactions between communities and groups, their environment, and their history, and provides identity and cultural continuity. Biocultural approaches reflecting both tangible and intangible cultural heritage have been used to develop indicators for social-ecological systems monitoring as well as to assess biocultural value of species for restoration (Sterling et al. 2017, Dacks et al. 2019, Winter et al. 2020b).

Operationalizing cultural attributes of marine species also has been attempted through methods developed to identify cultural keystone species (CKS). The CKS concept parallels the biological keystone species concept, where cultural keystone species are the plants and animals that form the contextual underpinnings in the lifeways of a specific group of people and play a significant role in cultural practices, structure, and functioning (Christancho and Vining 2004, Garibaldi and Turner 2004). However, there is not yet consensus about methods to identify CKS (Coe and Gaoue 2020). Further, we have concerns that a focus on identifying CKS could imply that other species are not culturally significant. Coe and Gaoue (2020) argue for a need to develop systematic approaches to explore the CKS concept, whether or not that exploration is used to formally designate species as keystone. This aligns with the cultural values approach developed by Smyth et al. (2006), who identified more specific cultural domains and elements that could be used to describe traditionally important marine resources, thereby informing management related to certain aspects of culture. That framework has since been included in International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines for gathering fishers’ knowledge for policy development and applied use (Cowie et al. 2020). Similarly, Winter et al. (2020c) provided a methodology to quantitatively identify biocultural functional groups that explicitly recognize a range of human relationships with various species, allowing for examination of species that serve specific functions and trade-offs with species that are associated with other functions.

Hawaiʻi as a model

Developing culturally relevant and appropriate ways to represent culture in conventional marine management is especially important in contexts where Indigenous communities have been dispossessed yet continue to play a prominent role in resource management, such as in Hawaiʻi (Winter et al. 2021). Further, a recent review of the methods used to value nature confirmed that of over 1000 studies, fewer than 25% included sociocultural indicators, and the majority of work has been done in forests, cultivated areas, and inland water bodies; only 8% of studies have been conducted in marine areas (Pascual et al. 2022). This situation is reflected in Hawaiʻi, where biocultural functional groups and cultural ecosystem services have been described and studied for Hawaiian agricultural and terrestrial systems (e.g., Gould et al. 2014, Winter et al. 2018b, 2020c), yet similar types of in-depth assessment have not yet been developed for the marine environment, although examinations of broad of CES concepts have been conducted (e.g., Pascua et al. 2017, Ingram et al. 2020, Gibson et al. 2022).

Given the base of interest in this topic and policy directives to integrate Indigenous Knowledge into research, policy, and decision making, Hawaiʻi is uniquely positioned to serve as a case study for broader application (e.g., Winter and McClatchey 2008, Winter et al. 2018a, Chang et al. 2019, Winter et al. 2020b, 2020c). In addition to managerial support, there are also many resources available, ranging from repositories of primary-source documentation of Indigenous Knowledge (e.g., State of Hawaiʻi Archives, Bishop Museum Archives, https://ulukau.org/, https://ulukau.org/kaniaina/); cultural working groups established through the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and others; and NOAA staff with primary functions as cultural liaisons and Kānaka ʻŌiwi (people who are Native Hawaiian) stewards. The State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources also has designated a number of community-based subsistence fishing areas (CBSFAs), where community organizations propose CBSFAs and develop management plans that include regulatory recommendations that adhere to state requirements. Plans are community-driven and based in customary and traditional practices, and although the first two took decades to implement and were fraught with controversy, lessons learned are building community capacity for local governance (Vaughn 2018). Finally, NOAA has entered into two collaborative management endeavors that weave together Indigenous and conventional marine management worldviews into a common planning process: Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (PMNM, Office of Hawaiian Affairs et al. 2021) and the Heʻeia National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR, Hawaiʻi Institute of Marine Biology 2023). Each of those processes took almost a decade to be realized, as has been seen in other efforts to Indigenize management in an equitable manner (Rist et al. 2019).

Yet requests for information about cultural attributes of marine species often assume that this type of assessment can be conducted relatively quickly and easily applied to quantitative ecosystem models. Thus, we sought to explore the information that can be obtained from this type of research approach, as well as the pros and cons of this type of research design. Based on our professional observations of misalignments between NOAA’s management priorities and the cultural values and priority resource species recognized in ʻŌiwi (Native Hawaiian) culture, we developed two hypotheses:

Hypothesis1: Species emphasized in NOAA management documents will differ from species that are emphasized in foundational Hawaiian texts.

Hypothesis 2: The cultural dimensions of species emphasized in NOAA management documents will differ from those emphasized in foundational Hawaiian texts.

Although our exploratory research is limited in scope, it initiates dialogue on principles that allowed us to consider ways in which conventional marine management and Indigenous Knowledges can be made complementary to better manage cultural aspects of marine species in Hawaiʻi and beyond.

METHODS

Positionality

Our author team represents an even mix of: (1) Federal (NOAA) and university applied researchers and practitioners grounded in diverse disciplines from fields such as marine ecology and various social sciences, including anthropology and sociolinguistics, and (2) Kānaka ʻŌiwi scholars and practitioners who teach ʻŌiwi methodology applied to marine systems, including ʻŌiwi library science, with some individuals falling into both categories. Many co-authors speak and read ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi (Hawaiian language) and are responsible for assisting NOAA or universities in appropriate cultural practices and considerations. The project was co-designed between these two communities, from initiating the concept to securing funding and staffing and designing the approach and analysis. The research question centers on conventional marine management because this is how research needs are often presented to us. We wanted to explore the implications of following through with those requests and the ethical and practical questions that might surface.

Our work was grounded in a social constructivist perspective, which assumes that the meanings and concepts of reality are derived through the interplay between the tangible or observable aspects of an object or event and the subject’s experience of it, shaped in part by diverse languages, cultures, and historical norms (Lincoln and Guba 1985, Charmaz 2008, Moon and Blackman 2014, Pascual et al. 2017). We are concerned that Indigenous Knowledge, when recognized in marine decision making, is often narrowly utilized and defined only by Eurocentric scientific approaches. These approaches are frequently described as “incorporation” or “integration” of Indigenous Knowledges into conventional management frameworks (as the primary standard-bearer), as opposed to enabling these other knowledge systems (with distinct and robust ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies) to stand on their own (Reid et al. 2021, Jessen et al. 2022). In our work we sought to apply principles of two-eyed seeing which emphasizes viewing the world from one eye using the strengths of Indigenous Knowledges and ways of knowing, from the other eye through the strengths of non-Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and using both eyes together to benefit all (Bartlett et al. 2012, Wright et al. 2019). We also implemented the strategies outlined in the PMNM planning document Mai Ka Pō Mai (Office of Hawaiian Affairs et al. 2021) associated with the Kūkulu (pillar) Hōʻike (applying knowledge systems): (1) conducting research in a manner that incorporates multiple perspectives, knowledge, systems, and values, (2) supporting, facilitating, and conducting Hawaiian methods of science and research, (3) supporting, facilitating, and conducting research on Hawaiian cultural heritage, traditions, and history, and (4) promoting alignment of research initiatives to advance Hawaiian research agenda items.

Thus, this research attempts initial steps to Indigenize approaches to management by appealing to Hawaiian Knowledge sources, collaborating across cultures, recognizing diverse worldviews, and proposing future directions, albeit within the constraints of existing management structures.

ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi

ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi is a critical aspect of Hawaiian Knowledge; therefore, we have chosen to use ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi throughout this paper. Translations are included the first time the word is introduced and common or local names and Linnean taxonomy are included for the taxa identified in results. ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi includes diacritical markings such as the ʻokina (glottal stop) and kahakō (macron), which we also use according to contemporary conventions. However, historical texts included diacritical markings to varying degrees. Therefore, when we are quoting texts or authors, all Hawaiian words and names are printed as originally published. Further, a common English writing convention is to italicize foreign words, but we have decided not to italicize Hawaiian words because ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi is not a foreign language in Hawaiʻi where the research was conducted and because Hawaiian Knowledge and language are significant components of the research as well. We do italicize genus and species when referring to organisms under the conventions of Linnaean binomial nomenclature.

Scope and design

Cultural dimensions of marine species in Hawaiʻi may be examined through the systematic analysis of a variety of knowledge sources, such as foundational texts, oral histories, interviews with kūpuna (elders), depictions of marine species in material culture (such as art), or references to marine species in intangible cultural heritage (such as songs, chants, poetry, proverbs, riddles, place names, deities). As an initial pilot, we chose to start with a limited scope that could test some of our ideas and initiate dialogue relatively quickly, focusing on foundational Hawaiian texts that were available in English translation. To test our hypotheses, we first systematically identified the documents to search for the presence of marine taxa. We then explored the cultural meaning of these taxa first inductively and then deductively through application of common biocultural frameworks. We used the prevalence of taxa and range of cultural meanings to identify a subset of taxa emphasized in each set of texts. Finally, we used these outputs to test our hypotheses.

Identifying documents

NOAA management documents

To identify the marine species emphasized in NOAA management, we first collected the NOAA documents and other sources that govern the management of marine species in federal waters at the Hawaiian archipelago level. The majority of these documents originated from NOAA Fisheries, because of responsibilities for the stewardship of the nation’s ocean resources and their habitat, including fish stocks and protected species. We also included related laws such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972) and Endangered Species Act (1973), as well as the management plan for PMNM, which covers approximately 65% of the EEZ surrounding the Hawaiian Islands. To ensure the lists of documents and species were accurate and comprehensive, we consulted five management specialists in NOAA’s Pacific Island Regional Office for important management documents and five specialists in NOAA’s Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center for the lists of species monitored. In total we identified 19 NOAA management documents for review (Appendix 1). We noted all marine species mentioned within each document. Then, we manually retrieved the taxonomic classification of each species from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (https://www.itis.gov/) and organized them phylogenetically. Occasionally, a management document did not list a particular genus and species, but used the phylum, class, order, or family more broadly. We listed those taxonomic groups at the level by which they were referenced. In addition to scientific nomenclature, we also noted Hawaiian names and local names (English, Japanese, or other local language used commonly to refer to the species) where possible. This compilation resulted in a comprehensive, phylogenetically organized spreadsheet indicating which taxa are mentioned in each NOAA management document, as well as the total number of documents that mention each taxon. We used descriptive statistics to identify the taxa emphasized by NOAA managers for subsequent analysis.

Foundational Hawaiian Texts

To identify the species emphasized in Hawaiian texts, we first identified foundational Hawaiian texts that fell into two categories: (1) documentation of Hawaiian marine species or fishing culture, and (2) foundational Hawaiian cultural texts, which could include fishing but were not primarily focused on fishing. Four co-authors provided suggestions as ʻŌiwi scholars and subject matter experts; we solicited additional suggestions from one Kanaka ʻŌiwi NOAA staff member who provides guidance on ʻŌiwi matters. They identified a total of 24 texts that represent a broad range of sources of Hawaiian Knowledge, ranging from cultural practices to material culture to expressions of intangible cultural heritage. We limited our analysis to the 13 texts that were available in English translations via digital libraries and included indices to easily identify the marine organisms mentioned (Appendix 2). Although we note this is a limitation to our analysis, it provided a starting point for a systematic pilot study that could be initiated immediately, shared digitally across a geographically dispersed team with different language capabilities, and completed relatively quickly.

We started by cataloging all marine organisms mentioned in the Kumulipo, a Hawaiian creation chant (Beckwith 1972). Where possible, we identified the corresponding common name and Linnean taxonomy. As with the NOAA documents, we listed only the names by which organisms were mentioned, which could be at different taxonomic levels. For example, manō (shark, Chondrichthyes class) can refer to multiple species of shark, but aku specifically refers to skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). We next compared the marine taxa mentioned in the other 12 foundational Hawaiian texts to the marine taxa listed within the Kumulipo.

Descriptive statistics did not reveal obvious patterns indicating a core group of emphasized taxa. Therefore, we conducted additional analysis to identify a subset of taxa for comparison with the taxa emphasized in the NOAA guidance documents.

Exploring cultural meaning

Inductive analysis of one Hawaiian text

To further refine the set of taxa in Hawaiian texts, we conducted inductive content analysis for one Hawaiian text as an initial pilot of an approach to examine cultural salience, the importance of a plant or animal understood in terms unique to that culture (Berlin 1992, Gosler 2017). Our focus on fisheries management led us to select Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa, Hawaiian fishing traditions, written by Daniel Kahāʻulelio, translated by Mary Kawena Pukui, and edited by Puakea Nogelmeier (Kahāʻulelio et al. 2006). Originally published in 1902 as a series of articles in the ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi newspaper, Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, this text is a comprehensive primary source relating Kānaka ʻŌiwi fishing practices of the 19th century and is an established cultural reference point for fishing traditions. It is important to acknowledge these writings reflect the experiences of one person, reflecting a specific place and time that may not necessarily capture the geographic or temporal diversity of Hawaiian knowledge. However, given the stature of Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa as one of the core sources documenting Native Hawaiian fishing traditions, it provided a useful starting point. In addition, the text is published in both ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi and English translation, so analyses could be cross-referenced between the two languages.

We documented the relationship between marine species and cultural dimensions in Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa using qualitative data analysis (QDA), a method that focuses on articulating the meaning reflected in a body of primary sources such as the articles collected in Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa (Lincoln and Guba 1985, Miles and Huberman 1994, Strauss and Corbin 1998). QDA Miner software (Provalis research, version 5.0.34) was used to attach thematic codes to the passages of text for easy organization, retrieval, and analysis. Each time a marine organism was mentioned, we coded the name of the organism at the taxonomic level of specificity that was mentioned. In addition to identifying the organism, we also created thematic codes that described the context in which the taxon was discussed. For initial coding, we used an inductive approach, creating codes as meanings in the text were revealed. The thematic codes were attached to the full passage, or “chunk” (Miles et al. 2014), of text that was needed to understand the relevant meaning. One passage could include multiple codes. For example, the following passage about aku includes the codes: duality, figurative, figurehead, fishing technique, kaona (hidden/deeper meaning), mele (song), and skill:

... my father told me that no aku fisher should be called a skilled person until he knew all that belonged to the left side and all that belonged to the right in the art of aku fishing, like the words of a mele composed by a well known chiefess.
  Gather up from the right, gather up from the left,
  The hungry ones ashore gather in haste,
  Wishing for some fire to cook fish,
  Yours are the fish sheltered by Kaukini,
  Indeed, isn’t it so?
  I shall taste and we shall both bite into it.
  (Kahāʻulelio et al. 2006:29).

Two researchers (Blacklow and Rosa) collaboratively created the definitions of codes through an iterative process. Blacklow held the academic training with conventional social science methods and Rosa held the language and cultural knowledge for ʻŌiwi terms, concepts, and methodologies such as makawalu (looking at the situation from many perspectives) and nānā i ke kumu (looking to the source; Oliveira and Wright 2015). They first coded the same portion of the text independently, creating their own inductive codes. The two then discussed the coding categories they each created and re-coded the text based on their shared code definitions. They repeated this process until they were confident that the codes were applied consistently and no new codes emerged. As a final check, Blacklow validated the coding by reading the text in full five times, while updating the coding for internal consistency.

To identify taxa with greater cultural salience in this particular text, we considered taxa associated with the highest numbers of total context codes (i.e., highest number of mentions) as well as highest numbers of unique context codes (i.e., highest variety of cultural dimensions). We then compared that list to the taxa mentioned most frequently in the Hawaiian texts and used this overlap to identify a subset of taxa for comparison to those emphasized in NOAA management documents.

Cultural dimensions frameworks

The inductive coding process yielded 74 codes, many of which were related to each other, for example, fishing hooks, fishing lines, and fishing poles might all be grouped together. Further grouping the codes would also allow for more streamlined analysis. To identify potential groups related to different aspects of cultural salience, we examined seven of the common frameworks discussed in the introduction relevant to cultural dimensions of marine taxa in Hawaiʻi: cultural indicators for marine resource management (Smyth et al. 2006), cultural keystone species (Garibaldi and Turner 2004); relational human well-being (Breslow et al. 2017); cultural ecosystem services as defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005); synthesis of cultural ecosystem services frameworks relevant to Hawaiʻi (Leong et al. 2019); Hawaiʻi specific application of cultural ecosystem services (Pascua et al. 2017); and biocultural functional groups based on social-ecological keystones foundational work (Winter et al. 2020c).

By comparing characteristics of each framework, we identified a core set of considerations when assessing cultural dimensions of marine taxa: the theoretical root, cultural perspective, total number of domains, balance of cultural domains commonly used and less commonly used in conventional marine management, and inclusion of cultural temporality as a domain (Table 1). Each framework has strengths and weaknesses that affects the implications of their application. With respect to theoretical root, Smyth et al.’s (2006) cultural values approach most closely aligned with our research question because it was designed to help practitioners reflect on the various cultural meanings or uses that a species embodies and management implications if including or excluding that species. A CKS approach implies that some species play a more central role in cultural integrity and equilibrium; therefore, their loss would have more significant cultural impacts (Coe and Gaoue 2020). The categories that were used to identify CKS by Garibaldi and Turner (2004) cover many of the concepts outlined by Smyth et al. (2006) but are much more general. Additionally, in our experience, framing a study’s purpose as identifying CKS can be problematic, especially if it is introduced by non-Indigenous researchers or managers rather than initiated by Indigenous communities. Breslow et al. (2017) attempts to bring reciprocal relationships to a human well-being lens, which risks missing reciprocal relationships between people and nature through stewardship when beneficial outcomes to people are the main focus. This linear one-way flow is even more prominent in the ecosystem services framing, which views the ecological system as providing goods and services to people, thereby improving human well-being (Kelble et al. 2013).

Frameworks also differed in whether they emphasized a broad or place-based cultural perspective. A broad approach provides cultural categories that may not reflect important place-based cultural nuances. However, a broad approach can be beneficial in conducting cross-cultural comparisons and its wide applicability. For example, Smyth et al. (2006) contains a broad approach to domains that allows for its application in a study that may be more exploratory or lacking a clear tie to a specific framework, such as this study’s exploration of the cultural dimensions of marine taxa. A place-based focus provides a bottom-up approach in which cultural meaning is defined and understood from looking to specific cultural sources (i.e., community conversations, archival texts, or art). Given that many cultures have a strong tie to place, this approach may be a more grounded way to determine aspects of cultural meaning; however, categories identified in this manner may be harder to compare to other locations.

However, this difficulty may also be due to interrelation between domains and degree of specificity in describing a particular domain. Although Smyth et al. (2006) show a relatively high number of domains (9), each domain is clearly defined and distinct, unlike those in Garibaldi and Turner (2004). Further, the concepts described in Pascua et al. (2017) derive from ʻŌiwi culture and include considerable overlap between commonly used and less common cultural domains. Thus, comparisons between the commonly used and less commonly used cultural domains would be inappropriate for this framework.

Because our research focuses on elevating attention to cultural aspects of marine species, we further grouped the cultural domains into those typically measured in dominant marine management practices, which we labeled common cultural domains, and those less frequently included, which we labeled less common cultural domains. Common cultural domains focus on the material elements of the environment that can be regulated and monetary or physical outputs that can be easily measured, which are the core concerns of conventional marine management culture. The frameworks based on CES did not provide an even spread across conventional management and cultural heritage domains because, by definition, CES only include nonmaterial aspects of culture. Leong et al. (2019) intentionally focused on only this category to elevate these concepts for managers. Yet, in reality, culture reflects a combination of material and nonmaterial dynamics. Although other ecosystem services categories may include material aspects of culture, they are not acknowledged as such. Pascua et al. (2017) makes this explicit by including both material and nonmaterial benefits and indicators within each category. This fluidity made it difficult to clearly assign concepts identified by Pascua et al. (2017) to only common or less common cultural domains. Because many frameworks rely more heavily on common cultural domains or less common cultural domains, but not both, there is value in better defining these distinctions to strive for a more balanced approach. Smyth et al. (2006) provided a fairly even consideration of these two aspects, which supported our application of that framework in this study.

Our final consideration was inclusion of cultural temporality. Culture is dynamic and changes over time. The consideration of cultural temporality can provide a basis for evaluating culture in a non-linear temporal context. If the framework accounts for cultural change, it may more holistically understand the connections of culture across time. Smyth et al. (2006) and Garibaldi and Turner (2004) both considered a temporal lens as a distinct framework domain. Smyth et al. (2006) focused on “contemporary representation,” whereas Garibaldi and Turner framed the aspect of time in terms of “persistence and memory of use in relationship to cultural change.” The other frameworks assumed cultural change and the importance of cultural continuity but did not measure them explicitly. Given that marine management is focused on present day conditions, Smyth et al. (2006) usefully sets up current cultural considerations while still providing space for the non-linear interpretation of time; the past informs the present and vice versa.

Testing hypotheses

Once we identified the subset of taxa emphasized in NOAA management documents and in Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa and other Hawaiian texts, we compared the two lists. To test Hypothesis 1 (species emphasized by NOAA managers will differ from species that are emphasized in Hawaiian texts), we compared the lists of taxa for overlap and identified three categories: taxa emphasized only in Hawaiian texts, taxa emphasized only in NOAA management documents, and taxa emphasized in both.

To test Hypothesis 2 (the cultural dimensions of species emphasized by NOAA managers will differ from those emphasized in Hawaiian texts), we assigned each of our context codes to the cultural domains identified in each framework. In some cases, codes reflected aspects of multiple domains so they were included in each domain. Given that each passage may already be coded for a number of context codes that reflect more than one domain, we believe this approach appropriately reflects the multiple meanings that could be associated with each taxon. We confirmed that the Smyth et al. (2006) framework provided the best fit for our research. In addition to conceptual fit, it provided more specificity and clear-cut guidance on qualities of each domain, as well as a manageable number of domains. Frameworks with large numbers of domains were challenging to compare across large numbers of species, and frameworks with fewer domains did not show clear differences in distribution of domains by taxa. Thus, we followed the categories in Table 1 to further group each cultural domain as either commonly used or less commonly used in conventional marine management. Again, the Smyth et al. (2006) framework provided the most even spread across these two categories. We then used chi-squared tests to compare the frequency of codes associated with common and less common cultural domains for the taxa emphasized only in Hawaiian texts, taxa emphasized only in NOAA management documents, and taxa emphasized in both. Because the framework developed by Pascua et al. (2017) did not lend itself well to a comparison across common and less common cultural domains, we also conducted analysis grouping the codes by the four ʻŌiwi concepts identified in their work for comparison.

RESULTS

Identifying taxa for analysis

Overall, there were 333 taxa mentioned across all NOAA management documents. Over 75% of these appeared in only one or two documents. Five percent (a total of 19) appeared in five or more management documents. We considered these taxa to be emphasized by NOAA managers and therefore focused on them in our subsequent analyses.

A total of 148 taxa were mentioned in the Kumulipo and compared across the selected Hawaiian texts. Approximately 50% of the taxa identified occurred in only one or two texts. There were 35 taxa that appeared in five or more documents, which also represented approximately 25% of the taxa identified.

A total of 118 taxa were mentioned in Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa, which were coded 2322 times with 74 unique context codes (see Appendix 3 for codebook with description of codes, dataset available upon request). A total of 30 taxa were in the top 25% for the highest numbers of total context codes and unique context codes. Sixteen of those 30 taxa also occurred in the list of the top 35 taxa mentioned in the set of 13 Hawaiian texts. We considered these 16 taxa emphasized in Hawaiian texts for further analyses. This method elevates taxa with multiple aspects of cultural salience, or cultural functions, which could lead to disregarding taxa with very specific, and very important, cultural functions, i.e., if taxa were mentioned frequently but with few unique context codes. We did not see examples of the latter in our dataset. However, some taxa that were very prominent in Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa were mentioned in fewer than five Hawaiian texts and thus were not considered emphasized by our method, for example, ʻōʻio (bonefish, Albula vulpes), mahimahi (dolphinfish, Coryphaena hippurus), and honu (turtles, Cryptodira suborder). Our results should not be viewed as a definitive list of species’ cultural hierarchical categorization for management or any other purposes. Rather, they are intended to provide additional considerations for the growing dialogue about how to better acknowledge cultural heritage in marine management.

Testing hypotheses

To test our hypotheses, we compared NOAA’s currently managed species with prevalent organisms in Hawaiian texts. Then, we further explored the cultural meaning of the emergent Hawaiian taxa through their application to existing biocultural frameworks.

Hypothesis 1: Taxa emphasized by NOAA managers will differ from those emphasized in Hawaiian texts

A total of 27 taxa were emphasized in the NOAA management documents and Hawaiian texts (Table 2). Eleven taxa were prioritized in NOAA management documents but were not emphasized in Hawaiian texts. Many of these taxa are currently economically important, such as bottomfish species, or species protected by the Endangered Species Act (1973) such as the ʻīlioholoikauaua (Hawaiian monk seal, Neomonachus schauinslandi). Eight taxa were emphasized in the Hawaiian texts but were not prioritized in the NOAA management documents. Some of these are coastal organisms, such as heʻe (octopus, Octopus spp.) and ʻopihi (limpet, Cellana spp.), which would be less likely to be represented in management plans focused on federal waters. Eight taxa occurred in both sets of documents: aku, akule (big-eye scad, Selar crumenophthalmus), aʻuaʻu (marlin, Istiophoridae spp.), ulua (jack, Carangidae family), manō, weke (goatfish, Mullidae family), ʻahi (yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares), and ʻōpelu (mackerel scad, Decapterus macarellus and D. maruadsi). ʻIao (silverside, Pranesus insularum) was the only taxon emphasized in Hawaiian texts that was not mentioned across any of the NOAA management documents. These results suggest a potential gap in NOAA’s current consideration of the cultural dimensions of marine species.

Hypothesis 2: The cultural dimensions of taxa emphasized by NOAA managers will differ from those in Hawaiian texts

When we compared the cultural domains for the taxa in each of the three categories, additional patterns emerged (Table 2, Fig. 1). The taxa identified in only the Hawaiian texts were associated with a moderate number of context codes (Fig. 1a). Two taxa were more strongly associated with common cultural domains, heʻe (X² (1, N = 182) = 4.31, p = 0.038) and ʻiao (X² (1, N = 100) = 27.04, p < 0.001), while two were associated more strongly with less common cultural domains, ʻopihi (X² (1, N = 100) = 12.89, p < 0.001) and moi (threadfin, Polydactylus sexfilis; X² (1, N = 67) = 10.88, p < 0.001).

The taxa emphasized in both Hawaiian texts and NOAA management documents were associated with by far the most context codes in Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa (Fig. 1b), indicating both a high number of mentions and multiple meanings associated with these taxa. Again, two taxa were more strongly associated with common cultural domains, aku (X² (1, N = 163) = 26.19, p < 0.001) and aʻuaʻu (X² (1, N = 24) = 4.17, p < 0.041), while two were more strongly associated with less common cultural domains, ʻōpelu (X² (1, N = 195) = 27.32, p < 0.001) and manō (X² (1, N = 186) = 10.41, p < 0.001).

Finally, the taxa emphasized only in NOAA management documents were associated with far fewer context codes in Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa (Fig. 1c), with three taxa not mentioned at all (lehi [jobfish, Aphareus rutilans], ʻīlioholoikauaua, and ono [wahoo, Acanthocybium solandri]). One taxon was more strongly associated with common cultural domains, mahimahi (X² (1, N = 93) = 32.53, p < 0.001), while one was more strongly associated with less common cultural domains, ehu (red snapper, Etelis carbunculus; X² (1, N = 16) = 4, p < 0.046). These results demonstrate that a focus on only the species of concern to conventional marine management misses important aspects of cultural meaning. In fact, it may disregard less charismatic coastal taxa that may be more culturally salient in the context of ecosystem-based management that includes fishing communities as part of the ecosystem.

Casting the net, further exploration of cultural dimensions of marine taxa

In the comparisons shown above, even our analysis of only one source of Hawaiian Knowledge indicates many layers of cultural meaning that may not be adequately considered under conventional marine management. To gain further insight into various aspects of culture, we examined our context codes in more depth for the taxa emphasized in the Hawaiian texts. We reviewed the set of context codes inductively, for broad impressions, and then deductively paired them with existing frameworks.

We first examined the overall number of context codes associated with each taxon. Overall, four taxa were associated with over 125 context codes each, which was a clear break from the taxa with the next highest number of total context codes (83, see Fig. 2). These four taxa were: aku (201), ʻōpelu (131), heʻe (129), and manō (129). These four taxa were also associated with the highest number of unique context codes: aku (47), ʻōpelu (36), heʻe (32), and manō (34). Below, we present an overview for each of these taxa based on an inductive grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998) and a narrative synthesis of the coded segments of text from Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa.

Aku was associated with the highest number of total and unique context codes. These codes were predominantly related to additional species relationships, fishing materials, and place. In particular, additional species are mentioned as analogous to aku throughout the text in order to relationally describe the ʻano (behavior and characteristics; Appendix 3) of aku. Additionally, a multitude of fishing techniques and tools are associated with aku, including canoes, fishing hooks, fishing lines, bait, lures, and more.

ʻŌpelu was often associated with bait because of its frequent use as such. ʻŌpelu also was mentioned as a taxon that played a role in livelihood and economy, although it reportedly lost monetary value over time. Furthermore, superstitions and symbols were related to ʻōpelu fishing, such as the lucky sign of seeing the parents of ʻōpelu pass under a canoe. Gender relations were also described: “To all ʻōpelu fishermen, this fish was like a loose woman that some like to loiter around, as though it were a friend indeed, and so it was called a god-that-destroys-its-devotee (akua-ʻai-kahu)” (Kahāʻulelio et al. 2006:105). The diversity in the functions of ōpelu, as well as its high number of context codes, suggest its important role in many cultural functions.

Heʻe is grounded in the text through many narratives that share important generational knowledge about the spiritual, gendered, physical, and practical aspects of heʻe in Hawaiian culture. In Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa, fishing for heʻe is associated with immense skill because heʻe can be evasive and thus challenging to catch. Once caught, heʻe is both eaten, and used as bait. Additionally, women play an essential role in heʻe fishing, as they are the primary fishers through heʻe spearing; men typically used other forms of fishing including fishing with a cowry shell lure.

Finally, manō appears in the text as encountered unexpectedly while at sea rather than for its contributions to the profession of fishing. Throughout Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa, manō is primarily referred to as dangerous, and required bravery and skill to overcome, including knowledge of lua fighting (Hawaiian martial art). Manō was also referenced with relation to specific place-based and spiritual knowledge in hula and mele.

Application of biocultural frameworks

In our exploration of existing biocultural frameworks to test Hypothesis 2, we initially planned to compare similarities and differences between ways the taxa mapped to the different domains of each framework. However, in conducting this analysis, we instead noted that the various areas of emphasis and assumptions behind each framework were different enough that it was not appropriate to compare results, which led to our focus on the Smyth et al. (2006) framework.

Instead, because each framework viewed marine resources through a different lens, they each had strengths and weaknesses that were better suited to answer different questions about marine taxa. For example, Pascua et al. (2017) developed a Hawaiʻi-based framework through small community workshops and working groups that identified four main domains embedded in Hawaiian Knowledge systems: ʻIke (Knowledge), Ola Mau (Physical and Mental Well-being), Pilina Kanaka (Social Interactions), and Mana (Spirituality). Comparisons of the distribution of domains within each taxon did not show clear patterns. This framework was better suited to illustrate the differences between taxa associated with a specific Hawaiian Knowledge domain (Fig. 3). Although this framework did identify sub-domains, those were too numerous for the type of analysis used in this study.

DISCUSSION

This study explored one method that begins to bring cultural dimensions of marine species into conversation with conventional marine management in Hawaiʻi. Although we demonstrated a difference between marine taxa emphasized in NOAA management documents and those emphasized in Hawaiian texts, we also surfaced a number of considerations that must be navigated in this type of research. Culture is complex and varied across place and time, and thus, attempts to characterize and measure culture are inherently challenging, and likely incomplete; continued scrutiny and additional efforts to deepen understanding of meanings, values, and implications of changes are needed. Moreover, there is growing consensus of the importance of including internal members of the culture being studied in project leadership (co-designed and drawing from emic understanding) for reasons that are both ethical and effective (Beals et al. 2020, St John and Akama 2022). The sources of knowledge analyzed, the focus of analysis, and analytical approaches and frameworks all choose to privilege certain ways of knowing and downplay others (Moon and Blackman 2014). Equally important are considerations of power; who initiated the research, how it might be used, and how might it be misused can affect the utility of results. Results from our study provide one point of entry for these discussions.

Even with these caveats, our work demonstrated that NOAA’s current management focus may not reflect important facets of Hawaiian culture. Although organisms emphasized in both the Hawaiian texts and NOAA’s management documents were most discussed in Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa, the organisms emphasized only in NOAA’s management documents were least discussed. Some of this mismatch is likely due to jurisdictional constraints with respect to managing marine taxa. Many of the taxa emphasized only in Hawaiian texts were coastal, which fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaiʻi Division of Aquatic Resources and might be more prevalent in their management guidance documents. This political division may impede coordinated management that upholds important aspects of cultural heritage and fulfills agency obligations for ecosystem-based management.

Our in-depth content analysis of Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa paired with an additional 12 foundational Hawaiian texts provided a useful starting point for this type of work. Moving forward, researchers may consider an in-depth analysis of more sources that capture written histories, as well as examine representation of cultural dimensions of marine taxa in other types of sources. Furthermore, ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi is central to Hawaiian culture and contains kaona, carrying with it thousands of years of complex systems of knowledge, genealogy, customs, and environmental practices. Future research should more deeply rely on the language itself to better triangulate Hawaiian Knowledge systems, rather than translations. Future research also should be co-developed with cultural practitioners, kūpuna, librarians, and other holders of ʻŌiwi Knowledge and better include their voices, e.g., through moʻolelo or oral histories such as those collected by Maly and Maly (2003b). Consideration of these additional dimensions that are connected to constantly changing cultures reflected in distinct communities, places, or lineages in Hawaiʻi may extend to how these communities are impacted by fisheries management decisions, climate change, and other threats to local ecosystems. In the textual analyses we conducted, we identified hundreds of marine taxa in Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa and the 12 additional Hawaiian textual sources, ultimately focusing on 16 of these taxa based on their higher frequencies of mentions and context codes across our sources. In doing so, we may have biased our selection toward organisms that fulfill a multitude of cultural functions, similar to the criteria for CKS. Although some taxa may play more specific roles in the Hawaiian social-ecological system and consequently have fewer mentions among the Hawaiian texts, the importance of those roles may be as crucial to cultural continuity as the roles of more frequently mentioned taxa. As we highlight in this study, CKS as well as conventional CES frameworks fail to capture this holistic aspect of biocultural relationships (Pascua et al. 2017, Winter et al. 2018b, Ingram et al. 2020).

Although often requested by modelers and managers, the deductive application of seven existing biocultural frameworks ultimately illuminated the challenges in finding an appropriate place-based, social-ecological mechanism to quantitatively describe cultural dimensions of marine species in Hawaiʻi. Attempts to quantify culture have been questioned by others as well, however, thoughtfully developing analyses collaboratively with the cultures involved can advance management considerations beyond relying solely on dimensions of culture emphasized in conventional marine management (Poe et al. 2014, Okamoto et al. 2020, Weijerman et al. 2021). The framework developed by Smyth et al. (2006) and adopted in recent IUCN guidance (Cowie et al. 2020) provided the most holistic application of our coding of Ka ʻOihana Lawaiʻa, and the framework developed by Pascua et al. (2017) illustrated taxa associated with different ʻŌiwi cultural concepts. However, each framework was better suited to different types of analyses, whether because of the scope of domains, inclusion of place-based consultation (or lack thereof), consideration of both material and nonmaterial aspects of culture, or inclusion of cultural temporality. Additionally, the intentions behind each framework serve different purposes and the application of codes to domains is subject to bias, resulting in varied interpretation of cultural meaning. If documenting cultural dimensions of species is desired, development of systematic and replicable approaches will be needed (Coe and Gaoue 2020). Ethical principles and practices for future adaptive co-management with cultural knowledge holders should be part of developing these approaches (Poe et al. 2014, Gavin et al. 2015).

Natural resource management norms are shifting to include such approaches, which is reflected in international marine management guidelines as well as U.S. national policies (Day et al. 2019, United States 2022, Fisk et al. 2024). In Hawaiʻi, CBSFAs were an early attempt to center place-based management and have been improving in their implementation. Federal examples include Mai Ka Pō Mai, a Native Hawaiian Guidance Document for the Management of Papahānaumokuākea (Office of Hawaiian Affairs et al. 2021) and the Management Plan for the Heʻeia NERR (Winter et al. 2020a, Hawaiʻi Institute of Marine Biology 2023). Both of these documents were co-developed with Kānaka ʻŌiwi partners from their inception, are grounded in ʻŌiwi cosmology, and stand as tangible examples of how NOAA and other government agencies can more meaningfully bring Indigenous perspectives into formal management plans. Although both of these plans are still in early implementation stages, they are part of a growing movement in Hawaiʻi to center Indigenous values as core guiding principles rather than cultural additions to non-Indigenous management frameworks. Indigenous protected areas in other countries go further, by enabling Indigenous Peoples to lead the planning and governance processes over their own terrestrial and marine protected areas, including within those managed under existing designations such as national parks or marine parks (Rist et al. 2019, Ryder et al. 2023).

Information about cultural attributes of marine species still has a role in co-managed or Indigenous-led governance. For example, the processes outlined in the IUCN guidelines for gathering of fishers’ knowledge for policy development and applied use recommends the framework we applied and provides examples of studies on fishers’ knowledge applied to co-management (Cowie et al. 2020). An important best practice is that research enhances knowledge and benefit sharing with the communities from which it originated. Although we identified knowledge that could be useful to both NOAA and Kānaka ʻŌiwi communities, the origin of the research question stemmed from NOAA managers who wished to improve their ability to consider culture in general models, not for specific community-identified outcomes. As such, it could be viewed as reinforcing existing power imbalances, with concerns that NOAA managers or others might apply our results inappropriately, e.g., designating some species as “more cultural” than others. Instead, we sought to improve insight about which species might be more associated with particular aspects of culture, which could help guide management priorities related to preserving biocultural functions. Similarly, limitations exist for any analysis framework. Without community support for the desired outcome, all results could be suspect as incomplete. However, when research questions and approaches are co-designed, any framework can be suitable if all involved co-determine how it will be used and that its limitations are acceptable. In Hawaiʻi, strong networks of community stewardship groups have emerged for place-based management (e.g., the Kai Kuleana Network, Maui Nui Makai Network) and specific management foci such as loko iʻa (fishponds) and are articulating their goals and objectives. For example, the network Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa created a needs assessment that compiles research needs and priorities articulated by the community of fishpond managers, landowners, and stewardship organizations (Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa 2020). Many of these align with NOAA management priorities. Investigations that center cultural research questions on community needs may garner more support than those designed simply to provide more information for general management models.

CONCLUSION

Including a more robust focus on cultural connections, practices, and heritage not only broadens understanding of marine social-ecological systems and their importance to society, but also enhances the types of science and knowledge considered in natural resource management. Studies like ours can contribute to this growing movement. Although only a small step, we demonstrated how applying two-eyed seeing even to a limited set of cultural sources can help open dialogue about the range of cultural considerations missing from conventional management models and help identify Indigenous research needs. However, care must be taken to ensure that cultural values, especially those related to less commonly examined cultural domains, are interpreted, protected, applied, and transmitted by the people who hold those values. Researchers should reflect on the degree to which their objectives result in benefits to the communities who are the focus of research and the potential for misuse and unintended harm. Research would ideally stem from priorities and questions identified first by the communities who embody that cultural knowledge, such as those identified in the Loko Iʻa Needs Assessment (Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa 2020). After all, research is relational. As much as the focus of study (e.g., the relationship between marine species and cultural meanings) and the data and evidence used to examine questions (drawing on multiple document sources), the process of conducting research is also relational. By co-producing research and bringing attention to the power dynamics and histories that have centered certain ways of knowing and utility values to the exclusion of others (whether intended or unintended) the research approach presented here helps not only to improve understanding of ecosystems for management, it also may contribute steps toward restoring trust and bringing greater inclusion of people into environmental decision making.

LITERATURE CITED

Bartlett, C., M. Marshall, and A. Marshall. 2012. Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2(4):331-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8

Beals, F., J. Kidman, and H. Funaki. 2020. Insider and outsider research: negotiating self at the edge of the emic/etic divide. Qualitative Inquiry 26(6):593-601. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419843950

Beckwith, M. W. 1972. The Kumulipo: a Hawaiian creation chant. University of Hawaiʻi Press, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824840389

Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological classification: principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400862597

Breslow, S. J., M. Allen, D. Holstein, 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. 2017. Evaluating indicators of human well-being for ecosystem-based management. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3(12):1411767. https://doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2017.1411767

Breslow, S. J., B. Sojka, R. Barnea, X. Basurto, C. Carothers, S. Charnley, S. Coulthard, N. Dolšak, J. Donatuto, C. G. Garcia-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

Carothers, C., J. Black, S. J. Langdon, R. Donkersloot, D. Ringer, J. Coleman, E. R. Gavenus, W. Justin, M. Williams, F. Christiansen, C. Stevens, B. Woods, S. Clark, P. M. Clay, L. Mack, J. Raymond-Yakoubian, A. Akall'eq Sanders, B. L. Stevens, and A. Whiting. 2021. Indigenous peoples and salmon stewardship: a critical relationship. Ecology and Society 26(1):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11972-260116

Chang, K., K. B. Winter, and N. K. Lincoln. 2019. Hawaiʻi in focus: navigating pathways in global biocultural leadership. Sustainability 11(1):283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010283

Charmaz, K. 2008. Constructionism and the grounded theory. Pages 397-412 in J. A. Holstein and J. F. Gubrium, editors, Handbook of constructionist research. Guilford, New York, New York, USA.

Charnley, S., C. Carothers, T. Satterfield, A. Levine, M. R. Poe, K. Norman, J. Donatuto, S. J. Breslow, M. B. Mascia, P. S. Levin, X. Basurto, C. C. Hicks, C. García-Quijano, and K. St. Martin. 2017. Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making. Environmental Science & Policy 73:80-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002

Christancho, S., and J. Vining. 2004. Culturally defined keystone species. Human Ecology Review 11(2):153-164.

Coastal Zone Management Act 1972, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.

Coe, M. A., and O. G. Gaoue. 2020. Cultural keystone species revisited: are we asking the right questions? Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 16:70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00422-z

Cowie, W., S. Al Dhaheri, A. Al Hashmi, V. Solis-Rivera, C. Baigun, K. Chang, R. Cooney, S. Kamakaʻala, K. Lindeman, C. Louwa, D. Roe, K. Walker-Painemilla, R. Al Baharna, M. Al Ameri, S. Al Hameli, K. Al Jaberi, N. Alzahlawi, R. Binkulaib, and Y. Al Kharusi. 2020. IUCN Guidelines for gathering of fishers’ knowledge for policy development and applied use. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Environment Agency, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.11.en

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(66):e38. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.38

Day, J., N. Dudley, M. Hockings, G. Holmes, D. Laffoley, S. Stolton, S. Wells, and L. Wenzel, editors. 2019. Guidelines for applying the IUCN protected area management categories to marine protected areas. Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Donkersloot, R., J. C. Black, C. Carothers, D. Ringer, W. Justin, P. M. Clay, M. R. Poe, E. R. Gavenus, W. Voinot-Baron, C. Stevens, M. Williams, J. Raymond-Yakoubian, F. Christiansen, S. J. Breslow, S. J. Langdon, J. M. Coleman, and S. J. Clark. 2020. Assessing the sustainability and equity of Alaska salmon fisheries through a well-being framework. Ecology and Society 25(2):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11549-250218

Endangered Species Act 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544.

Executive Order No. 13985, 86 C.F.R. 7009. 2021. Advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities through the Federal Government. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021-01753.pdf

Fisk, J. J., K. M. Leong, R. E. W. Berl, J. W. Long, A. C. Landon, M. M. Adams, D. L. Hankins, C. K. Williams, F. K. Lake, and J. Salerno. 2024. Evolving wildlife management cultures of governance through Indigenous Knowledges and perspectives. Journal of Wildlife Management 88(6):e22584. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22584

Garibaldi, A., and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00669-090301

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

Gibson, V. L., L. L. Bremer, K. M. Burnett, N. Keaka Lui, and C. M. Smith. 2022. Biocultural values of groundwater dependent ecosystems in Kona, Hawaiʻi. Ecology and Society 27(3):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13432-270318

Giddens, J., D. R. Kobayashi, G. N. M. Mukai, J. Asher, C. Birkeland, M. Fitchett, M. A. Hixon, M. Hutchinson, B. C. Mundy, J. O’Malley, M. Sabater, M. Scott, J. Stahl, R. Toonen, M. Trianni, I. D. Williams, P. A. Woodworth-Jefcoats, J. L. K.Wren, and M. Nelson. 2022. Assessing the vulnerability of marine life to climate change in the Pacific Islands Region. PLoS ONE 17(7):0270930. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270930

Gosler, A. G. 2017. The human factor: ecological salience in ornithology and ethno-ornithology. Journal of Ethnobiology 37(4):637-662. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-37.4.637

Gould, R. K., N. M. Ardoin, U. Woodside, T. Satterfield, N. Hannahs, and G. C. Daily. 2014. The forest has a story: cultural ecosystem services in Kona, Hawaiʻi. Ecology and Society 19(3):55. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06893-190355

Hawaiʻi Institute of Marine Biology. 2023. Heʻeia National Estuarine Research Reserve management plan. May 2023. Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Hicks, C. C., A. Levine, A. Agrawal, X. Basurto, S. J. Breslow, C. Carothers, S. Charnley, S. Coulthard, N. Dolsak, J. Donatuto, C. Garcia-Quijano, M. B. Mascia, K. Norman, M. R. Poe, T. Satterfield, K. St. Martin, and P. S. Levin. 2016. Engage key social concepts for sustainability. Science 352(6281):38-40. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad4977

Hui Mālama Loko Iʻa. 2020. Loko iʻa needs assessment. Kuaʻāina Ulu ʻAuamo, University of Hawaiʻi Sea Grant College Program, and Pacific Islands Climate Adaptation Science Center, Kaneʻohe, Hawaiʻi, USA. https://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Loko-I%CA%BBa-Needs-Assessment_FINAL_Aug2021.pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.25923/q8ya-8t22

Jessen, T. D., N. C. Ban, N. XEMŦOLTW Claxton, and C. T. Darimont. 2022. Contributions of Indigenous Knowledge to ecological and evolutionary understanding. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 20(2):93-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2435

Kahāʻulelio, D., P. Nogelmeier, editors, and M. K. Pukui, translator. 2006. Ka ʻoihana lawaiʻa = Hawaiian fishing traditions. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Kelble, C. R., D. K. Loomis, S. Lovelace, W. K. Nuttle, P. B. Ortner, P. Fletcher, G. S. Cook, J. J. Lorenz, and J. N. Boyer. 2013. The EBM-DPSER conceptual model: integrating ecosystem services into the DPSIR framework. PLoS ONE 8(8):e70766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070766

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. St 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

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 6:231. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00231

Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1976, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.

Maly, K., and O. Maly. 2003a. Volume I - Ka hana lawaiʻa a me nā koʻa o na kai ʻewalu: a history of fishing practices and marine fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. Kumu Pono Associates, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Maly, K., and O. Maly. 2003b. Volume II - Oral history interviews: ka hana lawaiʻa a me nā koʻa o na kai ʻewalu: a history of fishing practices and marine fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. Kumu Pono Associates, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et seq.

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Second Edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Miles, M. B., A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. Third edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Moon, K., and D. Blackman. 2014. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology 28(5):1167-1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 1972, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State of Hawaiʻi. 2021. Mai Ka Pō Mai: a Native Hawaiian guidance document for Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA.

Okamoto, D. K., M. R. Poe, T. B. Francis, A. E. Punt, P. S. Levin, A. O. Shelton, D. R. Armitage, J. S. Cleary, S. C. Dressell, R. Jones, H. Kitka, L. C. Lee, A. D. MacCall, J. A. McIsaac, S. Reifenstuhl, J. J. Silver, J. O. Schmidt, T. F. Thornton, R. Voss, and J. Woodruff. 2020. Attending to spatial social-ecological sensitivities to improve trade‐off analysis in natural resource management. Fish and Fisheries 21(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12409

Oliveira, K.-A. R. K. N., and E. K. Wright, editors. 2015. Kanaka ʻōiwi methodologies: moʻolelo and metaphor. University of Hawaiʻi Press, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA. https://doi.org/10.21313/hawaii/9780824855857.001.0001

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(Part B):465-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.012

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, D. N. Barton, R. Chaplin-Kramer, S. Jacobs, E. Kelemen, R. Kumar, E. Lazos, A. Martin, T. H. Mwampamba, B. Nakangu, P. O'Farrell, C. M. Raymond, S. M. Subramanian, M. Termansen, M. Van Noordwijk, and A. Vatn, editors. 2022. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522392

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, S. Díaz, G. Pataki, E. Roth, M. Stenseke, R. T. Watson, E. B. Dessane, M. Islar, E. Kelemen, V. Maris, M. Qaas, S. M. Subramanian, H. Wittmer, A. Adlan, S. Ahn, Y. S. Al-Hafedh, E. Amankwah, S. T. Asah, P. Berry, A. Bilgin, S. J. Breslow, C. Bullock, D. Cáceres, H. Daly-Hassen, E. Figueroa, C. D. Golden, E. Gómez-Baggethun, D. González-Jiménez, J. Houdet, H. Keune, R. Kumar, K. Ma, P. H. May, A. Mead, P. O’Farrell, R. Pandit, W. Pengue, R. Pichis-Madruga, F. Popa, S. Preston, D. Pacheco-Balanza, H. Saarikoski, B. B. Strassburg, M. van den Belt, M. Verma, F. Wickson, and N. Yagi. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26-27:7-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006

Poe, M. R., K. C. Norman, and P. S. Levin. 2014. Cultural dimensions of socioecological systems: key connections and guiding principles for conservation in coastal environments. Conservation Letters 7(3):166-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12068

Reid, A. J., L. E. Eckert, J. F. Lane, N. Young, S. G. Hinch, D. T. Darimont, S. J. Cooke, N. C. Ban, and A. Marshall. 2021. “Two-eyed seeing”: an Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries 22(2):243-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516

Rist, P., W. Rassip, D. Yunupingu, J. Wearne, J. Gould, J. Dulfer-Hyams, E. Bock, and D. Smyth. 2019. Indigenous protected areas in Sea Country: Indigenous-driven collaborative marine protected areas in Australia. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 29(S2):138-151. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3052

Ryder, F. J., G. Gnanalingam, D. W. Pritchard, W. J. Rayment, N. J. Scott, and C. D. Hepburn. 2023. Drivers of fishery status for the cultural keystone pāua (Halitotis iris) in customary fishery protection areas in Aotearoa New Zealand. Fisheries Research 261:106613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2023.106613

Seara, T., R. B. Pollnac, J. J. Poggie, C. Garcia-Quijano, I. Monnereau, and V. Ruiz. 2017. Fishing as therapy: impacts on job satisfaction and implications for fishery management. Ocean & Coastal Management 141:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.02.016

Smyth, D., J. Fitzpatrick, and D. Kwan. 2006. Towards the development of cultural indicators for marine resource management in the Torres Strait. Torres Strait Cooperative Research Centre, Townsville, Australia.

St John, N., and Y. Akama. 2022. Reimagining co-design on country as a relational and transformational practice. CoDesign 18(1):16-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2021.2001536

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. 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

Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Second edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Tam, J. C., J. S. Link, S. I. Large, K. Andrews, K. D. Friedland, J. Gove, E. Hazen, K. Holsman, M. Karnauskas, J. F. Samhouri, R. Shuford, N. Tomilieri, and S. Zador. 2017. Comparing apples to oranges: common trends and thresholds in anthropogenic and environmental pressures across multiple marine ecosystems. Frontiers in Marine Science 4:282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00282

Turner, N. J., R. Gregory, C. Brooks, L. Failing, and T. Satterfield. 2008. From invisibility to transparency: identifying the implications. Ecology and Society 13(2):7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02405-130207

UNESCO. 2022. Basic texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris, France.

United States. Office of Management and Budget, Council on Environmental Policy, and Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2015. Memorandum for executive departments and agencies M-16-01: incorporating ecosystem services into federal decision making. Washington, D.C., USA. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-01.pdf

United States. Office of Science and Technology Policy and Council on Environmental Policy. 2021. Memorandum for the heads of departments and agencies: Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge and federal decision making. Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/111521-OSTP-CEQ-ITEK-Memo.pdf

United States. Office of Science and Technology Policy and Council on Environmental Policy. 2022. Memorandum for heads of federal departments and agencies: guidance for federal departments and agencies on Indigenous Knowledge. Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/OSTP-CEQ-IK-Guidance.pdf

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

Weijerman, M., Z. S. Oyafuso, K. M. Leong, K. L. L. Oleson, and M. Winston. 2021. Supporting ecosystem-based fisheries management in meeting multiple objectives for sustainable use of coral reef ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 78(8):2999-3011. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa194

Wiktor-Mach, D. 2020. What role for culture in the age of sustainable development? UNESCO’s advocacy in the 2030 Agenda negotiations. International Journal of Cultural Policy 26(3):312-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2018.1534841

Williams, G. D., K. S. Andrews, J. A. Brown, J. M. Gove, E. L. Hazen, K. M. Leong, K. A. Montenero, J. H. Moss, J. M. Rosellon-Druker, I. D. Schroeder, E. Siddon, M. Szymkowiak, G. A. Whitehouse, S. G. Zador, and C. J. Harvey. 2021. Place-based ecosystem management: adapting integrated ecosystem assessment processes for developing scientifically and socially relevant indicator portfolios. Coastal Management 49(1):46-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846154

Winter, K. B., K. Beamer, M. B. Vaughan, A. M. Friedlander, M. H. Kido, A. N. Whitehead, M. K. H. Akutagawa, N. Kurashima, M. P. Lucas, and B. Nyberg. 2018a. The Moku system: managing biocultural resources for abundance within social-ecological regions in Hawaiʻi. Sustainability 10(10):3554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103554

Winter, K. B., N. Lincoln, and F. Berkes. 2018b. The social-ecological keystone concept: a quantifiable metaphor for understanding the structure, function, and resilience of a biocultural system. Sustainability 10(9):3294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093294

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. 2020b. 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., and W. McClatchey. 2008. Quantifying evolution of cultural interactions with plants: implications for managing diversity for resilience in social-ecological systems. Functional Ecosystems and Communities 2(1):1-10.

Winter, K. B., Y. M. Rii, F. A. W. L. Reppun, K. DeLaforgue Hintzen, R. A. Alegado, B. W. Bowen, L. L. Bremer, M. Coffman, J. L. Deenik, M. J. Donahue, K. A. Falinski, K. Frank, E. C. Franklin, N. Kurashima, N. Kekuewa Lincoln, E. M. P. Madin, M. A. McManus, C. E. Nelson, R. Okano, A. Olegario, P. Pascua, K. L. L. Oleson, M. R. Price, M. J. Rivera, K. S. Rodgers, T. Ticktin, C. L. Sabine, C. M. Smith, A. Hewett, R. Kaluhiwa, M. Cypher, B. Thomas, J.-A. Leong, K. Kekuewa, J. Tanimoto, K. Kukea-Shultz, A. Kawelo, K. Kotubetey, B. J. Neilson, T. S. Lee, and R. J. Toonen. 2020a. Collaborative research to inform adaptive comanagement: a framework for the Heʻeia National Estuarine Research Reserve. Ecology and Society 25(4):15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11895-250415

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

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(4):337-344. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC20009

Wright, A. L., C. Gabel, M. Ballantyne, S. M. Jack, and O. Wahoush. 2019. Using two-eyed seeing in research with Indigenous People: an integrative review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919869695