Urban ʻĀina: An Indigenous, Biocultural Pathway to Transforming Urban Spaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

This manuscript, which I have read carefully, is about the transformation of urban landscapes through indigenous knowledge and biocultural pathways in Hawai'i. 

While the topic is very interesting and could be a nice addition to the field, the authors failed to provide a scientific article with clear questions or hypotheses, methodology, data, and analysis. Therefore, I strongly recommend rewriting the article in a scientific style with sound data and analysis. I also suggest using fewer local terms so that international readers can follow the story.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your interest in and your careful read of our manuscript.  We appreciate your time to complete the review report form provide suggestions, both of which recommend conforming our submission to conventional scientific journal formatting including using fewer local terms.  I will address these together as one theme.  While my co-authors and I agree that there are times when conventional formatting is appropriate, we respectfully decline to alter our manuscript so that it can align with approaches that have been used by dismissive non-Indigenous scholars to caricaturize and diminish Indigenous cultures.  Imposing the conventional formatting and language suggested would so completely change the manuscript that it would no longer reflect the spirit and traditions that led to its creation.  Instead, we choose to maintain our original format and content in order to contribute to the growing body of scholarship that relies on Indigenous frameworks.  Your recommendation helped us understand the need to explain the intention behind our choice and led us to add an explanation and justification in the Introduction section, 1.3 Orientation.   

The anti-colonial model our work relies upon is based on intimate and multi-generational connections with and knowledge of place.  Our manuscript includes primary data written in authentic and diverse voices of the practitioners on the land in urban areas of O‘ahu (Hawai‘i).  Indigenous and non-indigenous practitioners from around the world have explained how Indigenous approaches ---like ours with roots in Hawai‘i--- resonate with and inform their work across the globe (see:  Campbell, L.K., et al. 2021.; McMillen, H. L., et al. 2020.; McMillen, H. L. et al. 2021.).  Again, we appreciate your suggestions but believe this manuscript will also resonate broadly without conforming to conventional scientific journal norms. 

 

Sincerely,

Heather McMillen on behalf of coauthors

 

Campbell, L.K., et al. 2021. Best Practices for Hearing All Voices in Our Urban Forests. CityTREES, Journal of the Society of Municipal Arborists. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/63307; 

McMillen, H. L., et al. 2020.  Biocultural Stewardship, Indigenous and Local Ecological Knowledge, and the Urban Crucible. Ecology and Society. https://ecologyandsociety.org/vol25/iss2/art9/ ;

McMillen, H. L. et al. 2021.  Living in kinship within urban landscapes through equitable, multicultural, collaborative stewardship in New York City. In:  Urban Nature: Enriching Belonging, Wellbeing and Bioculture. Routledge Studies in Urban Ecology. 1st Edition. Cocks, Michelle L. and Shackleton, Charlie M., Eds. Routledge, London & New York.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript explores the fascinating and critical topic of Urban ‘Āina, a Native Hawaiian practice that shapes the way Indigenous people interact with urban environments as cultural kīpuka. The research question is clearly defined, and the main concepts and methods are briefly outlined, providing a refreshing approach to presenting cultural landscape research.

As a result of the intricate nature of the Native Hawaiian language, I found myself struggling to comprehend the method through which Urban Aina passed down the ancestral wisdom of the Native people, as well as the social network and educational mechanism that facilitated this transmission. Given that the article primarily focuses on space as its central theme, I noticed some minor gaps in the social network of transmission, which prompted me to offer additional insights.

To further enhance the paper's effectiveness, the authors could consider providing an overall map that illustrates all the cases discussed, benefiting readers unfamiliar with Hawaii and helping them understand the research's context. Additionally, providing more context and background information on the historical and contemporary challenges and opportunities for Urban ‘Āina in Hawai‘i would be useful for non-Hawaiian readers.

Moreover, the paper could explore how the Pewa Framework engages with ancestral wisdom during the data collection process. It would also be beneficial to discuss how the ceremony and Pewa Framework guide the research process and analysis, including the principles and practices of both.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your thoughtful read and review of our manuscript.  We appreciate your recommendations to improve and here I will provide a description of where and how we addressed them:

1. Your suggestion to provide more detail on knowledge transmission mechanisms and context has been addressed in an additional explanation of Hawaiian epistemology at the end of  “Section 1.5. Significance”, especially lines 311-335 (in the ‘track changes’ version) , and additional paragraph and bulleted examples in “Section 4. Reciprocity: Case Studies” lines 560-568 (in the ‘track changes’ version).
2. Your suggestion to provide more context for the research, we added a ‘road map’ for the paper has been implemented in an additional paragraph in 1.3. Orientation.   We also updated the map (Figure 3) and added aerial imagery (figures 4, 12) that shows our research locations. Your suggestion to provide additional context and background for the research locations has been implemented in Section 1.4  “Introducing Urban ‘Āina” with a footnote on Honolulu and in section 3.1. “Context and History of Urban Stewardship in Hawai‘i” (lines 494-592 in the ‘track changes’ version), and in Section 4 “Introduction to the case studies” (lines 555-559 in ‘track changes’ version).
3. Your suggestion to connect the Pewa Framework and ceremony to the data collection and larger research processes has been elaborated in Section 2. “Methodology - Pewa Framework and Process”  and in the section “Transparency: Results and Solution-oriented Discussion” (lines 1261-1264 in ‘track changes’ version).
4.  Your suggestion in the reviewer report to enhance the clarity of discussion, results, and conclusions is addressed above.

Thank you again for the thoughtful review.

 

Sincerely,

Heather McMillen on behalf of coauthors

Reviewer 3 Report

It is very interesting this topic of research is described in this article. I welcome it! It highlights the value of ancestral knowledge and culture in its relationship with and between nature and society. 

For the sake of the perfection of the manuscript we suggest the following:

1. Contextualize the reader in the Urban ʻĀina culture. In order to better understand the contribution of the same. I suggest an introductory paragraph that explains the scope, variables, or concepts that will be explained in the article from the logic of its authors. This will orient the reader as to what he/she will find in the future.

2. The introduction of a methodological graph or a graphical summary would help to better understand the article.

3. We suggest arguing in epigraph 1.4 the urban concept provided in the article.  There is an urban concept that characterizes the current relations of society with the territory and nature. From this relationship is born the present urban culture, generated by the capitalist city and its system of relations of production, consumption, exchanges, symbols, etc. This differs from the ancestral culture presented in this article. The authors could argue and value the contribution of the ancestral culture of the urban in contrast with the modern concept. Allowing to reveal the values that the ancestral culture could contribute to the western urban concept.

The way in which the article is exposed only contributes more to the approach of the relationship man-nature, in contexts of the lesser degree of urbanization. 

4. The lessons learned from the case studies could be incorporated in order to make recommendations or summarize the aspects that are valued in the case studies.

5 I perceive the article to be very long. Perhaps the case studies could be synthesized.

6 I would recommend moving some of the appendices, such as the glossary of words.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your enthusiastic and thoughtful read and review of our manuscript.  We appreciate your recommendations to improve and here I will provide a description of where and how we have implemented changes:

 

1. Contextualize the reader in the Urban ʻĀina culture. In order to better understand the contribution of the same. I suggest an introductory paragraph that explains the scope, variables, or concepts that will be explained in the article from the logic of its authors. This will orient the reader as to what he/she will find in the future.

Your suggestion to provide a ‘road map’ for the paper has been implemented in an additional paragraph in 1.3. Orientation. 

 

2. The introduction of a methodological graph or a graphical summary would help to better understand the article.

We appreciate this recommendation, unfortunately, given the short time it is beyond the scope of what we can do here. We will consider it in future iterations of this work.

3. We suggest arguing in epigraph 1.4 the urban concept provided in the article.  There is an urban concept that characterizes the current relations of society with the territory and nature. From this relationship is born the present urban culture, generated by the capitalist city and its system of relations of production, consumption, exchanges, symbols, etc. This differs from the ancestral culture presented in this article. The authors could argue and value the contribution of the ancestral culture of the urban in contrast with the modern concept. Allowing to reveal the values that the ancestral culture could contribute to the western urban concept.

The way in which the article is exposed only contributes more to the approach of the relationship man-nature, in contexts of the lesser degree of urbanization. 

Yes, we agree with your comment and it has been our intention to demonstrate that ancestral culture contributes to the western urban concept. We have articulated that more clearly in 1.4 Introducing Urban ʻĀina (lines 221-223 in ‘track changes’ version); in a new page added to the section “Significance” (lines 306-309 in ‘track changes’ version), and also in the section 5 “Transparency: Results and Solution-oriented Discussion” (lines 1261-1264 in ‘track changes’ version).

4. The lessons learned from the case studies could be incorporated in order to make recommendations or summarize the aspects that are valued in the case studies.

These have been more clearly articulated and can be seen with the ‘track changes’ in:

5. Transparency: Results and Solution-oriented Discussion.
6. Conclusion: Our Vision of Sustainable Urban Stewardship as Urban ʻĀina.

And in Table 1. Guidance to Advance Indigenous-Led Biocultural Approaches to Urban Stewardship – specific suggestions for different audiences.

5 I perceive the article to be very long. Perhaps the case studies could be synthesized.

For this publication we decided to maintain the level of detail in each case study. For future iterations of the work we will consider that option.

6 I would recommend moving some of the appendices, such as the glossary of words.

We find the glossary of Hawaiian words to be left in the paper for the convenience of the reader.  We are open to the editors’ guidance on keeping it there or moving it to an appendix.

7 Your suggestion in the reviewer report to “improve the clarity in stating the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods” is addressed in the response above; however ,the comment also suggests we conform to a conventional format for scientific journals which we have intentionally diverted from as those approaches have been used by dismissive non-Indigenous scholars to caricaturize and diminish Indigenous cultures.  Imposing the conventional formatting would so completely change the manuscript that it would no longer reflect the spirit and traditions that led to its creation.  Instead, we choose to maintain our original format and content in order to contribute to the growing body of scholarship that relies on Indigenous frameworks.   The anti-colonial model our work relies upon is based on intimate and multi-generational connections with and knowledge of place.  Our manuscript includes primary data written in authentic and diverse voices of the practitioners on the land in urban areas of O‘ahu.  It also includes data sources from proverbs, chants and legends.  Indigenous and non-indigenous practitioners from around the world have explained how Indigenous approaches like ours with roots in Hawai‘i resonate with and inform their work across the globe (see:  Campbell, L.K., et al. 2021. Best Practices for Hearing All Voices in Our Urban Forests. CityTREES, Journal of the Society of Municipal Arborists. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/63307; McMillen, H. L., et al. 2020.  Biocultural Stewardship, Indigenous and Local Ecological Knowledge, and the Urban Crucible. Ecology and Society. https://ecologyandsociety.org/vol25/iss2/art9/ ; McMillen, H. L. et al. Living in kinship within urban landscapes through equitable, multicultural, collaborative stewardship in New York City. In:  Urban Nature: Enriching Belonging, Wellbeing and Bioculture. Routledge Studies in Urban Ecology. 1st Edition. Cocks, Michelle L. and Shackleton, Charlie M., Eds. Routledge, London & New York.). 

Again, we appreciate your suggestion but believe this manuscript will also resonate broadly without conforming to conventional scientific journal norms. 

Sincerely,

Heather McMillen on behalf of coauthors

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript systematically introduces a practice-based Native Hawaiian methods for sustainable urban management, Urban 'Āina, a model for transforming the urban landscape based on an indigenous, biocultural, traditional wisdom. The manuscript details multiple cases, each written by authors familiar with the cases, in a comprehensive and lively manner. However, rather than being published as a research paper, the manuscript is more of an introduction to sustainable management models. The research questions are not clear, and the authors did not sort out an ecological management paradigm with theoretical value or promotion value based on each research case, so a major revision is recommended. It is suggested that the authors take the case as the research object, reorganize the writing logic, summarize and propose the practical framework of Urban 'Āina sustainable management. Details as follows:

1. Reorganize the structure of the article, and condense the chapters that are too "story-like" in the manuscript, especially legends and ballads. Summarize the similarities and differences of the cases and refine them into sustainable management paradigms.

2. Based on scientific analysis methods to reorganize the case, it is recommended to add spatial analysis diagrams to specifically express the research process and research results at the landscape level.

3. The research method of Pewa framework needs more literature to support its objectivity and practicality.

4. The case site is not a "city" in the traditional sense, and its landscape features, construction and management modes are quite different from ordinary cities. It is recommended that the author add an overview of the research area in the method section, and introduce and define it in a more precise way.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you for your interest in our manuscript.  We appreciate your time to complete the review report form, and to provide detailed suggestions.   Both the form and detailed suggestions focus on the recommendation to conform our submission to conventional scientific journal formatting.  Here I will address the report and detailed suggestions together.  While my co-authors and I agree that there are times when conventional formatting is appropriate, we respectfully decline to alter our manuscript so that it can align with approaches that have been used by dismissive non-Indigenous scholars to caricaturize and diminish Indigenous cultures.  Imposing the conventional formatting and language suggested would so completely change the manuscript that it would no longer reflect the spirit and traditions that led to its creation.  Instead, we choose to maintain our original format and content in order to contribute to the growing body of scholarship that relies on Indigenous frameworks. Your recommendation helped us understand the need to explain the intention behind our choice and led us to add an explanation and justification in the Introduction section, 1.3 Orientation.   

 The anti-colonial model our work relies upon is based on intimate and multi-generational connections with and knowledge of place.  Our manuscript includes primary data written in authentic and diverse voices of the practitioners on the land in urban areas of O‘ahu.  Indigenous and non-indigenous practitioners from around the world have explained how Indigenous approaches like ours with roots in Hawai‘i resonate with and inform their work across the globe (see:  Campbell, L.K., et al. 2021.; McMillen, H. L., et al. 2020; McMillen, H. L. et al. 2021).  Again, we appreciate your suggestions but believe this manuscript will also resonate broadly without conforming to conventional scientific journal norms. 

 

Campbell, L.K., et al. 2021. Best Practices for Hearing All Voices in Our Urban Forests. CityTREES, Journal of the Society of Municipal Arborists. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/63307; McMillen, H. L., et al. 2020.  Biocultural Stewardship, Indigenous and Local Ecological Knowledge, and the Urban Crucible. Ecology and Society. https://ecologyandsociety.org/vol25/iss2/art9/ ;

McMillen, H. L. et al. 2021.  Living in kinship within urban landscapes through equitable, multicultural, collaborative stewardship in New York City. In:  Urban Nature: Enriching Belonging, Wellbeing and Bioculture. Routledge Studies in Urban Ecology. 1st Edition. Cocks, Michelle L. and Shackleton, Charlie M., Eds. Routledge, London & New York.

 

Here I address your specific recommendations:

1. Reorganize the structure of the article, and condense the chapters that are too "story-like" in the manuscript, especially legends and ballads. Summarize the similarities and differences of the cases and refine them into sustainable management paradigms.

A response to the first recommendation is addressed in my introductory paragraph. In addition, I note that legends and ballads have been recognized as repositories of ancient wisdom.  In response to the second sentence recommending ‘summarizing’, this already exists in section “6. Conclusion: Our Vision of Sustainable Urban Stewardship as Urban ʻĀina” and in “Table 1. Guidance to Advance Indigenous-Led Biocultural Approaches to Urban Stewardship – specific suggestions for different audiences.”

2. Based on scientific analysis methods to reorganize the case, it is recommended to add spatial analysis diagrams to specifically express the research process and research results at the landscape level.

Thank you for this recommendation, we have refined “Figure 3” which shows the locations of the case studies more clearly.  We also added two figures (4, and 12) with aerial imagery of case studies to show their locations at a landscape level.

3. The research method of Pewa framework needs more literature to support its objectivity and practicality.

See additional explanation and works cited in the “Significance” sub-section of the Introduction and in the “Methodology – Pewa Framework”  section, lines 430-455 in ‘track changes’ version.

4. The case site is not a "city" in the traditional sense, and its landscape features, construction and management modes are quite different from ordinary cities. It is recommended that the author add an overview of the research area in the method section, and introduce and define it in a more precise way.

The case studies are indeed embedded within or are directly adjacent to urban areas in the island of O‘ahu which is the same footprint that is designated in a colonial land terminology as “Honolulu.”  We have clarified this in section “3. Equity: Urban green spaces in Hawai‘i’ in a foot note and also through the additional aerial images mentioned above.  We also added (lines 555-559 in ‘track changes’ verso ) in 4. Reciprocity: Case Studies to explain the urban context of the work.

 Sincerely,

Heather McMillen on behalf of coauthors

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for heeding the recommendations. I suggest revising the length of the manuscript.  I could move some elements such as photos to the appendix section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, 

Thank you for your second review to improve our paper.  In response to your request to shorten the article, I searched for and removed some redundant lines: 303, 487-495, 739-740; 1220-1222.  I appreciate your suggestion to move the photos to appendices as a way to shorten the length; however we believe having the photos within the manuscript help to break up the text and so - even though they take up space- they help move the reader through the work more clearly and efficiently.  We have decided to keep them. Instead, we moved the glossary of Hawaiian words out of the body of the paper, to Appendix B which will appear in Supplementary Material.

Best Regards,

Heather

Reviewer 4 Report

Accept after minor revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript a second time. We revised and resubmitted our manuscript based on your first round of comments, which can be seen in: 1) our abstract clearly stating our overarching question "What does contemporary Indigenous stewardship look like in urban spaces?" 2) in lines 127-146 and again lines 394-398 that lay out how we are translating/ adapting conventional journal structural elements of papers to our own; 3) lines 314-323 which clearly state why we choose not to rely on those conventions; 4) section 5 where we clearly describe our results explaining an urban kipuka (as a crosscutting theme).   We maintain our position that restructuring our paper according to the conventions you suggest would detract from the intention of the paper and so we respectfully insist on keeping our structure. Still, we identified ways to address the spirit of your recommendations and to help guide readers with specific words, as seen here:

• In the abstract: added 'we find that'... and emphasize method here: "Our structure of the paper and our research methodology rely on ceremony and the Pewa Framework"
• Refined wording in the 1^st paragraph of the methodology section (335-342)
• Line 336- added 'methodological'
• line 1290 just before the table with our recommendations for different audiences, I added " Based on our collective experience and insights based on years of community work”

Best Regards,

Heather