*2.3. Assessment Methods*

We provide a brief overview of methods used to assess each outcome listed in Table 1. Detailed methods can be found in the Supplementary Information.

#### 2.3.1. Community and Cultural Outcomes

To understand participant families' perspectives and experiences with the family or 'ohana program to date, we conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 8 of 11 families in the pilot project following an informal gathering between the researchers, participants, and Kako'o ' ¯ Oiwi staff. ¯ Interviews were conducted while working with the families in the lo'i for 2–3 hours, which helped to build relationships and facilitate conversations (see SI Methods for guiding questions and further methods).

Our interview approach and analysis adapted an existing process and framework developed by Pascua et al. [17] to assess cultural ecosystem services from an indigenous Hawaiian perspective. This framework was developed through participatory methods within other indigenous Hawaiian communities and proved to be a more appropriate classification for cultural services than western frameworks such as the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment cultural ecosystem service categories [44]. Rather than framing cultural ecosystem services as uni-directional benefits from nature to people, Pascua et al. [17] focus on reciprocal relationships between people and 'aina (land, literally that ¯ which feeds), which resonated with the place-based, indigenous and local communities with whom she worked. The cultural service categories encompass the Hawaiian language that contain nuanced meaning not reflected within their English translations. As such, it was important to use a Hawai'i-based categorization method to document the results and maintain the authenticity of outcomes mentioned within each interview.

Interview quotes and themes were coded according to Pascua et al. [17]'s Hawai'i-based cultural ecosystem service framework that includes four main categories: 'Ike (knowledge); Mana (spiritual landscapes); Pilina Kanaka (social connections); and Ola Mau (physical and mental ¯ well-being) as well as subsets of those categories. Where themes did not fit into existing categories, a new category was created (see Table 4 and SI Methods).

#### 2.3.2. Future Scenario Analyses

In order evaluate ecological and economic outcomes important both to Kako'o ' ¯ Oiwi and of ¯ relevance to State of Hawai'i sustainability goals around food, energy, and water, we developed a spatially explicit future agricultural restoration scenario based on Kako'o ' ¯ Oiwi's conceptual plan and ¯ input from the farm manager and executive director (Figure 2; Table 2; SI Methods). The scenario is over a 20-year period (2018–2037) in line with the timeline of Kako'o ' ¯ Oiwi's conceptual plan [ ¯ 42]. As a point of comparison for the sediment and nutrient retention analyses only, we included an urban scenario based on development patterns of neighboring urban areas (Table 2; SI Methods).

**Figure 2.** (**left**) Current land cover in He'eia wetland. Note that mangroves (an invasive species in Hawai'i) are currently being removed, but that the effect of mangrove removal was not considered in this study; (**right**) restored agriculture scenario in He'eia wetland. Retention areas are re-planted with wetland native plants or restored to loko i'a (fish ponds).


**Table 2.** Descriptions of current, restored agriculture, and urban scenarios of He'eia wetland.
