**Aspect 6: Systematic approaches towards holistic evaluation of solutions to biocultural resource problems.**

In resource management, solutions born out of a narrow view of a problem have the potential to unintentionally create new problems in other areas of a system. Multi-criteria decision-making processes can be used as a tool to determine the best possible solution to a complex problem [57]. Hawaiians employed such tools in the approach of managing biocultural resources to attain abundance ('*aina momona ¯* ) in their social-ecological system.

Knowledge of an evaluation process relating to the system-level management of biocultural resources has been documented from the island of Moloka'i—as developed in the pre-*ali*'*i* era prior to the voyage of Pa'ao to Hawai'i (approximately 800 years BCE). This evaluation process operated ¯ on both the temporal and spatial planes, and in the spiritual realm. It was utilized as a tool by decision-making councils that were composed of recognized experts who were valued for their unique skills and experience—whether that be in agro-ecology, aquaculture, hydrology, meteorology, phenology, etc. The councils operated along certain guiding principles, and themselves guided resource management to ensure the health and integrity of eight resource realms [6,58]. The council's decision-making process entailed consideration of the impact of a proposed solution on each of the eight realms (i.e., the spatial scale, Table 6) as to arrive at solutions that addressed the problems of a specific realm without causing harm to any of the other realms. Once a decision was arrived at, it was implemented by the people in a manner that honored the ancestral past while addressing present needs, and establishing more abundance for future generations (i.e., the temporal scale) [6,58].

**Table 6.** The eight main components of the systematic evaluation process that was developed on the island of Moloka'i to ensure abundance in all resource realms of the social-ecological system [6,58], with descriptions and contextual interpretations provided by the authors.


The implementation of biocultural resource management tools, such as the coordination of various types of *kapu* (harvest restrictions) across the *moku* (as discussed above), were the kind of issues decided upon by systematic evaluations of both problems and potential solutions. The unilateral placement of *kapu* on the scale of a single *ahupua*'*a* would not be as effective as collaborative and coordinated efforts between multiple adjacent *ahupua*'*a*. Various types of rotating *kapu* were employed in concert—between *ahupua*'*a* within the context of the *moku*—to synergistically yield long-term abundance of key biocultural resources. For example, when a key species was closed in one *ahupua*'*a*, it might be open in the adjacent *ahupua*'*a*, with shared harvest rights across both, so that residents could continue to access that resource even while it was rested and rejuvenating in their own home area. The designation of social-ecological zones, which maintained horizontal connections between *ahupua*'*a* facilitated this management approach, and allowed for the continual replenishment of key species in the archipelago-scale ecoregion without compromising the ability of *ahupua*'*a* tenants to feed themselves. This was true for key biocultural resources in oceans, estuaries, streams, wetlands, and forested areas. Similar evaluation processes were likely employed in the *ali*'*i* era—between the arrival of Pa'ao from Tahiti and the arrival of Europeans in 1778—although records of this are not ¯ known to exist.

#### **4. Discussion**

An analysis of various aspects of managing biocultural resources on a system level has provided some insight into the pathways that pre-contact Hawaiians followed to attain the state of abundance known in the Hawaiian language as '*aina momona. ¯* However, an abandonment of traditional resource management practices in the post-contact era led to a decline in biocultural resources. A good example of this can be seen by the loss of *kapu* (restrictions) as resource management tools.

*Kapu* were born out of and engrained in the ancient Hawaiian religion in the pre-contact era. These restrictions regulated many aspects of society and human behavior, not just use and management

of biocultural resources [7,22,59]. When the ancient Hawaiian religion was abolished in 1819—forty years after Western contact—the *kapu* system was dissolved. With it went a system of regulations for resource extraction, and the authority to enforce violations [29]. Regulations and enforcement were key tools used to manage for long-term abundance of biocultural resources. Loss of the *kapu* system left valuable species unprotected as Hawai'i, an important stop on shipping routes across the Pacific, entered the global trade economy of the 19th century. The massive over-harvesting of '*Iliahi* (Sandalwood, *Santalum* spp.) for export to China contributed to the near extinction of these trees [60]. The example of '*Iliahi* shows how not only key species, but entire ecosystems, were vulnerable to the pressures of capitalism without the *kapu* system in place to protect biocultural resources. After the word "*kapu*" took on a negative connotation in the Christian era—due to its association with the ancient religion—some forms of resource extraction regulations continued under a different term, "*ho*'*omalu*", which means, "to rest;" and were codified into law during the Kingdom Era. This was applied locally within *ahupua*'*a* to particular species or areas, as needed and identified by the designated *konohiki* [29].

The abolishment of the *kapu* system was just one of many changes that undermined the Hawaiian system of biocultural resource management during the 19th century. Depopulation from introduced diseases in the century following European contact was a major contributing factor to the abandonment of agro-ecological systems [61]. Changes in land tenure from the 1840s through the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 created private ownership in place of communal land holdings [14,30,62,63]. Nearshore fisheries, and local rights to harvest and manage them, were gradually condemned, starting with the Act that annexed Hawai'i as a territory in 1900. This opened fisheries to public access and shifted resource management authority from the *ahupua*'*a* level to centralized bureaucracies under the territorial and then state governments, and decoupled nearshore resource management from land-based resource management [64,65]. However, in spite of all the change, some *ahupua*'*a* tenants continued modified forms of biocultural resource management tools into the 20th century, such as the continued practice of designating species and areas for protection (*ho*'*omalu*). These informal "rests" were designated by respected elders, but were not codified or enforceable except by social pressures [37]. Andrade [14] documents some specific examples of informal community agreements to rest certain areas, or to rotate harvest in the *ahupua*'*a* of Ha'ena (Halele'a, Kaua'i). H ¯ a'ena is just one ¯ of many Hawaiian communities that found novel ways of adapting to continue traditional resource management practices well into the 20th century.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Of all the scales of land division in ancient Hawai'i, the *moku* unit is the scale most closely aligned with archipelago-scale ecoregions that encompass population dynamics of key biocultural resources—such as fish, birds, and plants. Biocultural resource management on this scale involved spatial management in both the horizontal and the vertical planes via the designation of social-ecological zones, as well as the concentric scaling of nested land divisions. All of this was done in concert with knowledge about temporal patterns associated with the cycles of lunar months and solar years, which were correlated with life cycles and population dynamics of key resource species. Given the success of this traditional resource management system in ancient Hawai'i, a return to this approach would be an essential component of large-scale biocultural restoration in the 21st century.

We introduce the term "the *moku* system" to describe the Hawaiian biocultural resource management system, practiced in the pre-contact era, which divided large islands into social-ecological regions (*moku*) and further into interrelated social-ecological communities (*ahupua*'*a*)—each of which contained a network of scaled kinship-derived sections ('*ili*, *mo*'*o*, etc.) nested within them. Each *moku* had several social-ecological zones (e.g., *wao* and *kai*) running horizontally as belts across the region. These *wao* divided individual *ahupua*'*a* vertically while connecting them to adjacent *ahupua*'*a* horizontally, allowing for holistic management of biocultural resources across human communities. These delineated social-ecological zones created a mosaic that contained forested landscapes, cultural landscapes [66], and seascapes which synergistically harnessed a diversity of

ecosystem services to facilitate an abundance of biocultural resources. The richest (*waiwai*) *ahupua*'*a* cycled enough fresh water (*wai*) through them to allow for aquaculture via various classes of freshand/or brackish-water fishponds. Such *ahupua*'*a* were labeled with the term ''*aina momona ¯* ' (abundant lands) due to the amount of food and other biocultural resources they were able to sustainably produce over successive generations.

The contemporary trend of framing biocultural conservation efforts around the scale of *ahupua*'*a* can be effective in some localized instances, such as the creation of Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs). Successful examples of these in the contemporary period include the Ha'ena ¯ Community-based Subsistence Fishing Area (CBSFA) on the island of Kaua'i, and the Ka'up¯ ulehu Fish ¯ Replenishment Area on Hawai'i Island, which employs marine management rules and regulations (e.g., closed areas, closed seasons, size restrictions, restricted entry), within single *ahupua*'*a*, that have been used for thousands of years by Pacific Islanders [67]. However, limiting discussions of biocultural resource management to the *ahupua*'*a* scale may not be conducive for the success of large-scale efforts to restore and maintain biocultural resource abundance. While the scale of *ahupua*'*a* is key, there are multiple additional scales of divisions within *moku* boundaries ('*okana*/*kalana*, *ahupua*'*a*, '*ili*, *mo*'*o*, *pauku*) that need to be considered. More research is needed to understand the interplay between these divisions, the organization of human communities in ancient Hawai'i, and to allow for further insight into the historic management of biocultural resources as a means to inform contemporary restoration efforts.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, K.B.W. and K.B.; Methodology, K.B.W., K.B., M.B.V., and M.P.L.; Validation, A.M.F., M.H.K., A.N.W., N.K. and M.K.H.A.; Formal Analysis, K.B.W and M.P.L.; Investigation, K.B.W., and K.B.; Data Curation, B.N., and M.P.L.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, K.B.W.; Writing—Review & Editing, K.B.W., K.B., M.B.V., M.H.K., A.M.F., N.K., A.N.W, and M.P.L.; Visualization, M.P.L, and B.N.; Funding Acquisition, K.B.W.

**Funding:** The APC was funded through the generous support of Hawai'i Community Foundation.

**Acknowledgments:** We would like to acknowledge those whose teachings and endeavors have laid the foundation for this research. In particular we express our gratitude to Edward Kaanaana and John Ka'imikaua (both now passed), who were lineal keepers of knowledge, wisdom, and practice that descended from ancient times. We also have deep appreciation for Carlos Andrade, a native Hawaiian practitioner, scholar, and philosopher who has provoked our thoughts and challenged our thinking for decades. A special thanks go out to S. Kekuewa Kikiloi, Ka'eo Duarte, K ¯ anekoa ¯ Kukea ¯ -Schultz, and others who have shaped our thoughts on the inner workings and management of the Hawaiian social-ecological system. Hawai'iFinally, we thank the communities of the E Alu Pu¯ Network whose continued work in the traditional and customary practice of *malama ¯* '*aina ¯* inspires us all and gives us hope for the future. *Mahalo.*

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

#### **References**


© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
