**4. Form and Function of Biocultural Restoration on 'Aina Malo'o ¯**

#### *4.1. He loa ka 'imina—Long is the Search*

A key challenge to restoring traditional dryland systems is the lack of working reference systems to serve as models for the restoration and research efforts. This relative lack of knowledge requires highly interdisciplinary approaches that triangulate agricultural form and function. Multiple lines of evidence are explored in each of the restoration efforts, drawing upon archaeology, archaeobotany, biogeochemistry, agronomy, ethnographic and ethnohistorical accounts, and living culture to develop models of each system. This process is far from linear, but rather is an iterative and interactive learning process, similar to descriptions of learning in adaptive co-management settings (Figure 5) [76]. Investigations of archaeology and ethnohistory influence the design of scientific field experiments and restoration; these trials further inform practices. Outreach activities at all the sites share research and experiential findings while engaging visitors in ways that enable inputs of local and traditional

knowledge. The knowledge input from the community also feeds into future activities and experiments. Through this iterative process, refinement of our understanding occurs while simultaneously powering awareness, connections, and, ultimately, cultural revitalization.

**Figure 5.** A conceptual diagram that outlines the multiple pathways used to drive agricultural restoration, and how that further leads to cultural revitalization. Each organization applies each of the pathways, although to different extents. The upper loop represents a feedback mechanism in which the agricultural restoration drives opportunities for research and engagement, which further drives opportunities for restoration. This feedback loop powers cultural revitalization through the engagement of the community.

Despite significant variations in their starting points, each organization leverages its disciplinary strengths while pursuing multiple methods. Extensive intact archaeology at Puanui [77–80] has provided for rediscovery based on archaeology and archaeobotany; however, the scantily recorded ethnohistory at Puanui resulted in an agricultural system that was well understood from a theoretical standpoint but poorly understood in practice. In contrast, Mala Kalu'ulu has minimal physical ¯ infrastructure associated with its agroforestry and therefore minimal archaeological or archaeobotanical data. However, as one of the primary points of European contact in the 18th century, their region has exceptionally well-recorded ethnographic and historical testimony detailing many practical aspects of the agriculture. Despite considerable losses in knowledge and practice, each effort has managed to create a sharp picture of what life and agriculture were like before decline.
