DOCSLIB.ORG

Wao Kele O Puna

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wao Kele O Puna FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES AT WAO KELE O PUNA FINAL REPORT AUGUST 2011 Prepared for: OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS Prepared by: TOWNSCAPE, INC. Sub-Consultant: SMS RESEARCH FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES AT WAO KELE O PUNA FINAL REPORT AUGUST 2011 Prepared for: OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS Prepared by: TOWNSCAPE, INC. Sub-Consultant: SMS RESEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................v 1 Introduction and Planning Context...................................................................................................................1 2 Site Conditions ....................................................................................................................................................2 2.1 Site Description............................................................................................................................................2 2.2 Past and Present Surrounding Communities ...............................................................................................3 2.3 Natural and Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................4 2.4 Hazards........................................................................................................................................................6 2.5 Regulatory Requirements .............................................................................................................................8 2.6 Summary of Opportunities and Constraints...............................................................................................11 3 Potential Sustainable Income/Revenue Opportunities ..................................................................................13 3.1 Income/Revenue Opportunities Identification Process ..............................................................................13 3.2 Screening Criteria......................................................................................................................................14 3.3 “Top Ten” Opportunities for Feasibility and Market Analysis..................................................................15 3.4 Opportunities not included in Feasibility and Market Analysis.................................................................16 4 Feasibility Analysis of “Top Ten” Opportunities...........................................................................................18 4.1 Hawaiian Culture and Wao Kele o Puna Phone Applications...................................................................18 4.2 Individual Donor-Based Program .............................................................................................................25 4.3 Native and Hawaiian Cultural Plant Cultivation.......................................................................................30 4.4 Sustainable Forestry ..................................................................................................................................40 4.5 Invasive Species Extraction........................................................................................................................46 4.6 Wao Kele o Puna Makana / Virtual Shop ..................................................................................................53 4.7 Eco-Tourism and Volun-Tourism...............................................................................................................60 4.8 Overnight Retreat Destination ...................................................................................................................68 4.9 Movies and Documentaries........................................................................................................................73 4.10 “Niche” Carbon Credits............................................................................................................................78 5 Comparative Summary of Opportunity Costs & Feasibility ........................................................................88 6 Implementation Needs and Recommendations ..............................................................................................90 7 References..........................................................................................................................................................91 Wao Kele o Puna Revenue Opportunities Page i TABLES Table ES-1: Summary of Feasibility Analysis................................................................................... vi Table 2-1: Regulatory Requirements .................................................................................................. 8 Table 3-1: Opportunities Screening Criteria ..................................................................................... 14 Table 3-2: Opportunities for Feasibility and Market Analysis.......................................................... 15 Table 3-3: Opportunities not included in Feasibility & Market Analysis......................................... 16 Table 4-1: Capital and Operating Costs for Wao Kele o Puna Phone App....................................... 23 Table 4-2: Five-Year Cost and Revenue Projection for Wao Kele o Puna Phone App .................... 24 Table 4-3: Examples of Maui Watershed Partnership Donation Options ......................................... 25 Table 4-4: Capital and Operating Cost for Individual Donor-based Program .................................. 27 Table 4-5: Comparative Examples for Individual Donor-based Programs....................................... 28 Table 4-6: Five-Year Cost and Revenue Projection for Individual Donor-based Program .............. 29 Table 4-7: Five-Year Cost and Revenue Projection for Phone App + Donations-based Website .... 29 Table 4-8: Value of Crop Sales in the State of Hawaiÿi.................................................................... 33 Table 4-9: Capital and Annual Operating Costs for Plant Nursery................................................... 36 Table 4-10: Capital and Operating Costs for Agroforestry............................................................... 37 Table 4-11: Capital and Operating Costs for Sustainable Forestry................................................... 43 Table 4-12: Five-Year Cost Projection for Strawberry Guava Removal .......................................... 51 Table 4-13: Payment Process Options for Wao Kele o Puna E-store ............................................... 55 Table 4-14: Capital and Operating Cost for E-Store......................................................................... 56 Table 4-15: Capital and Operating Cost for Makuÿu Farmers Market Booth ................................... 57 Table 4-16: Wao Kele o Puna E-Store and Market Booth Breakeven Analysis ............................... 58 Table 4-17: Five-Year Cost and Revenue Projection for E-store ..................................................... 58 Table 4-18: Five-Year Cost and Revenue Projection for Makuÿu Market Booth ............................. 59 Table 4-19: Capital and Operating Costs for Ecotourism ................................................................. 64 Table 4-20: Ecotourism Pro Forma................................................................................................... 65 Table 4-21: Five-Year Cost and Revenue Projection for Ecotourism............................................... 65 Table 4-22: Ecotourism Comparison Examples................................................................................ 67 Table 4-23: Capital and Operating Costs for Overnight Retreat Facility.......................................... 70 Table 4-24: Overnight Retreat Pro Forma......................................................................................... 71 Table 4-25: U.S. National Park Film Production Permits................................................................. 73 Table 4-26: Comparative Pricing for Hawaiÿi Filming Locations .................................................... 75 Table 4-27: Average Length of Film Productions in U.S. National Parks........................................ 75 Table 4-28: Capital and Operating Costs for Movies and Documentaries........................................ 76 Table 4-29: Five-Year Cost and Revenue Projection for Movies and Documentaries ..................... 77 Table 4-30: Up-Front and Operating Costs for an Improved Forest Management Carbon Project (50 acres).............................................................................................................................. 83 Table 4-31: Carbon Project Assumptions ......................................................................................... 85 Table 4-32: 100-Year Cost and Revenue Projection Example.......................................................... 86 Table 5-1: Concept Feasibility Summary.......................................................................................... 88 Wao Kele o Puna Revenue Opportunities Page ii FIGURES Figure 2-1: Site Vicinity...................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2-2: Recent Lava Flows near Wao
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wao Kele O Puna Comprehensive Management Plan
    Wao Kele o Puna Comprehensive Management Plan Prepared for: August, 2017 Prepared by: Nālehualawaku‘ulei Nālehualawaku‘ulei Nā-lehua-lawa-ku‘u-lei is a team of cultural resource specialists and planners that have taken on the responsibilities in preparing this comprehensive management for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Nā pua o kēia lei nani The flowers of this lovely lei Lehua a‘o Wao Kele The lehua blossoms of Wao Kele Lawa lua i kēia lei Bound tightly in this lei Ku‘u lei makamae My most treasured lei Lei hiwahiwa o Puna Beloved lei of Puna E mālama mākou iā ‘oe Let us serve you E hō mai ka ‘ike Grant us wisdom ‘O mākou nā pua For we represent the flowers O Nālehualawaku‘ulei Of Nālehualawaku‘ulei (Poem by na Auli‘i Mitchell, Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i) We come together like the flowers strung in a lei to complete the task put before us. To assist in the preservation of Hawaiian lands, the sacred lands of Wao Kele o Puna, therefore we are: The Flowers That Complete My Lei Preparation of the Wao Kele o Puna Comprehensive Management Plan In addition to the planning team (Nālehualawaku‘ulei), many minds and hands played important roles in the preparation of this Wao Kele o Puna Comprehensive Management Plan. Likewise, a number of support documents were used in the development of this plan (many are noted as Appendices). As part of the planning process, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs assembled the ‘Aha Kūkā (Advisory Council), bringing members of the diverse Puna community together to provide mana‘o (thoughts and opinions) to OHA regarding the development of this comprehensive management plan (CMP).
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnohistory of Puna
    Research in Action: Ethnohistory of Puna: Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor Praxis: exercise or practice of an art, science or skill. Praxis distinguishes Ethnic Studies from the long-established disciplines of the social sciences. Ethnic Studies faculty are committed to placing research at the service of the community and challenging students to examine and analyze contemporary issues of concern to Hawaiʻi’s ethnic communities from diverse perspectives. The clash between the beliefs, customs, and practices of Hawaiian descendants of Pele (Hawaiian goddess of the volcano) and the developers of geothermal energy is one of the issues which drew upon the resources of Ethnic Studies faculty and students.1 The issue evolved as the federal and state governments partnered with private corporations to clear the largest remaining lowland rainforest in Hawaiʻi for geothermal wells and power plants. In response, Hawaiians filed several civil suits, organized religious ceremonies in the volcanic rainforest, produced documentary films and joined with environmentalists in public protests. A key turning point in the struggle was a ruling by the US federal court that an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was required for the project to proceed. Where proposed development projects funded by the federal government affect native peoples, new historic preservation laws mandated the inclusion of a cultural impact study in the EIS. Thus, for the first time since the passage of the new laws, a cultural impact study was conducted for native Hawaiians in Hawaiʻi. The First Cultural Impact Study on Native Hawaiians University of Hawaiʻi faculty from the Ethnic Studies Department, the Department of Urban and Regional Planning and the School of Social Work were contracted to conduct the study.2 The team drew upon the individual skills and experiences of their faculty and developed a multi-method approach for the study.
    [Show full text]
  • MĀLAMA I KA HONUA a Quarterly Journal of the SIERRA CLUB of HAWAI‘I JULY-SEPTEMBER 2018
    MĀLAMA I KA HONUA A Quarterly Journal of the SIERRA CLUB OF HAWAI‘I JULY-SEPTEMBER 2018 This month’s issue: Celebrating 50 years of Service in Hawai‘i nei Pele Visits Puna Geothermal 2 Ventures Group Reports & Outings 8 The New Normal of a 20 Changing Climate Fall in Love with ‘Ōhi‘a 24 Hawai‘i’s Bills Make History 29 2018 marks our 50th year of service in Hawai‘i and you’re invited to celebrate with us in September and October—see page 6 for details! Pele visits Puna Geothermal Venture Geothermal Risks: Then and Now by Nelson Ho, Moku Loa Group Executive Committee Member and by Cory Harden, Moku Loa Group Executive Committee Member Nathan Yuen, Chapter Conservation Chair It is sobering to realize that if the lava had first and forcing 75 neighbors to evacuate. It took four The Sierra Club has always advocated weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable broken ground at Puna Geothermal Venture, some months to control the problem well. In November 1992, energy. Geothermal development, however, has always presented a unique set of dangers and threats to people of our friends in Puna could have fallen victim to fearing an imminent blowout, desperate operators and the environment. explosions and releases of hazardous gas. parked two D-9 tractors on top of a well to hold it down. The Moku Loa Group first opposed geothermal development in 1982 and have been involved in multiple Instead, Hawaiʻi Island watched breathlessly Hydrogen sulfide releases: There were unplanned contested case hearings and lawsuits, starting with the industrial intrusions into the Kahaualeʻa rainforest, which as Pele danced closer and closer to Puna Geothermal releases in August 1992, August 2005, November 2011, is adjacent and upwind of the Hawaiʻi Volcanoes Venture (PGV).
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Kilauea Middle East Rift Geothermal Resource Subzone
    I PROPOSED KILAUEA MIDDLE EAST RIFT I GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE SUBZONE (Puna Forest Reserve) Island of Hawaii Circular C -114 State of Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Water and Land Development Honolulu, Hawaii Augus~ 1985 GEORGE R. ARIYOSHI Governor BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUSUMU ONO, Chairperson, Member at Large MOSES W. KEALOHA, Member at Large J. DOUGLAS ING, Oahu Member ROLAND H. HIGASHI, Hawaii Member JOHN Y. ARIS UMI, Maui Member LEONARD H. ZALOPANY, Kauai Member DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUSUMU ONO, Chairperson and Member Board of Land and Natural Resources EDGAR A. HAMASU, Deputy to the Chairperson MANABU TAGOMORI, Manager-Chief Engineer Division of Water and Land Development ii PREFACE Pursuant to the Decision and Order (see Appendix A) on the proposed geothermal resource subzone at Kahaualea, Hawaii, rendered by the Board of Land and Natural Resources on December 28, 1984, the Department of Land and Natural Resources has been directed to conduct an assessment of the Kilauea middle east rift zone for possible designation as a geothermal resource subzone. The objective of this report is to provide information to the Board of Land and Natural Resources so that it may evaluate the geothermal resource and examine potential impacts from geothermal development on the area in and adjacent to the Wao Kele 'O Puna Natural Area Reserve. This report identifies the Kilauea middle east rift, Island of Hawaii, as a potential geothermal resource subzone and summarizes the results of a statewide assessment conducted by the staff of the Division of Water and Land Development with participation of an interagency technical committee; federal, state, and county agencies; private industry; and the general public.
    [Show full text]
  • Geothermal Energy in Hawai'i : an Analysis of Promotion and Regulation
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2001 Geothermal energy in Hawai'i : an analysis of promotion and regulation Annie Szvetecz The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Szvetecz, Annie, "Geothermal energy in Hawai'i : an analysis of promotion and regulation" (2001). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8258. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8258 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GEOTHERMAL ENERGY IN HAWAI I: AN ANALYSIS OF PROMOTION AND REGULATION By Annie Szvetecz presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Environmental Studies Program The University of Montana August 2001 Approved y Chaiiperson Dean, Graduate School Date Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: EP39059 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT OiSMrtation Pufcdi»h»ng UMI EP39059 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Justice for Indigenous Hawaiians: Reclaiming Land and Resources
    Environmental Justice for Indigenous Hawaiians: Reclaiming Land and Resources Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie, Susan K. Serrano, and Koalani Laura Kaulukukui conomic indicators of all of Hawai'i's people-the highest Born was the land, born were the chiefs, born were rates of illness, prison incarceration, and homelessness, and nau ka "nina, h'anau ke ali'i, h' nau ke kanaka. H the common people. Mary Kawena Pukui, Olelo the lowest rates of higher education and family income. No 'eau, Hawaiian Proverbs & Poetical Sayings 56 But Native Hawaiians are again reclaiming their land. (1983). So begins an ancient proverb that describes the In partnership with conservation nonprofits and governmen- inseparable spiritual-and genealogical-connection tal bodies, Native Hawaiians are regaining control over the between Native Hawaiians and their land and environment. management of their land, environment, and cultural For Native Hawaiians, the land, or 'Tina, is not a mere physi- resources. Three recent land reclamations, described below, cal reality. Instead, it is an integral component of Native represent some the first-ever returns of lands to Native Hawaiian social, cultural, and spiritual life. Like many indige- Hawaiian ownership and control in over a century. The nous peoples, Native Hawaiians see an interdependent, recip- 25,856-acre Wao Kele o Puna rainforest on the Big Island of rocal relationship between the gods, the land, and the people. Hawai'i was successfully returned to Native Hawaiian hands In stark contrast to the Western notion of privately held after a more than twenty-year legal and political battle property, Hawaiians did not conceive of land as exclusive sparked by a private entity's attempts to clear the native for- and alienable, but instead communal and shared.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawaii's Rainforest Crunch: Land, People, and Geothermal Development Paul Faulstich Pitzer College
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Pitzer Faculty Publications and Research Pitzer Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1990 Hawaii's Rainforest Crunch: Land, People, and Geothermal Development Paul Faulstich Pitzer College Recommended Citation Faulstich, Paul. Hawaii's Rainforest Crunch: Land, People, and Geothermal Development. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 14(4): 36-8, 1990 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Pitzer Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pitzer Faculty Publications and Research by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hawaii's Rainforest Crunch: Land, People, and Geothermal Development https://www.culturalsurvival.org/print/4310 Published on Cultural Survival (https://www.culturalsurvival.org) Home > Hawaii's Rainforest Crunch: Land, People, and Geothermal Development [1] [1] One hundred and forty-one people, led by Native Hawaiians, were arrested on 25 March 1990 as part of the largest demonstration yet against geothermal development in Hawaii. The gathering was intended to focus attention on Native Hawaiian rights and the ecological consequences of drilling geothermal wells in the near-pristine Wao Kele O Puna rain forest. The energy project, undertaken by True Geothermal Company and endorsed by Hawaii's governor and other imposing figures, has already invaded the largest intact tropical lowland rain forest in the United States. More than 1,500 protesters showed up for the demonstration on the "Big Island" of Hawaii to express their solidarity and outrage over rainforest destruction and the denial of Native Hawaiian rights. Representatives from more than 30 groups concerned with social and environmental issues participated, including the demonstration's co-sponsors, the Pele Defense Fund and the Big Island Rainforest Action Group.
    [Show full text]
  • THE HISTORY of GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT in HAWAII in 1881 King Kalakaua and His Attorney General Unacceptable
    #3 THE HISTORY OF GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT IN HAWAII In 1881 King Kalakaua and his attorney general unacceptable. For over ten years the well and power William Armstrong met with Thomas Edison in New plant were operated without effective pollution York. It was Armstrong who offered the idea of the abatement. Brine was disposed of in unlined ponds. volcano producing electricity and the possibility of Hydrogen sulfide and other pollutants were released laying electric wires as submarine cables between into the community during well cleanouts and plant islands. Edison replies “It would cost so much, that’s maintenance. all.” This remark was remarkably prophetic, given the In the early 1980's Campbell Estate teamed up fact that as of 1992, the state and federal government with True Oil Company to exploratory drill in the spent over $64 million dollars on a 500 megawatt forest just east of Volcanoes National Park. A volcanic inter island cable project. eruption forced a speedy land swap with the state to After years of opposition and effective lawsuits move the operation to Wao Kele o Puna, a protected challenging the environmental and economic viability natural area reserve. In 1993, True geothermal of the 500 MW undersea cable to Oahu, geothermal abandoned the project for financial reasons and turned drilling began in Puna in 1961 when Thermal Power it over to the state. drilled four shallow wells in the Kilauea Middle East In 1989 the State began to drill four Scientific Rift Zone. Geothermal development is planned for the Observation Holes to define the extent of the Puna district of the Big Island in the Kilauea East Rift resource.
    [Show full text]
  • 15Th Century
    15th Century Folks describe different ‘phases’ or ‘periods’ of human settlement and agricultural development in the Islands over time. Different people use different terms for each of these (some use varying timeframes, as well,) but they seem to generally fall into Settlement, Development, Expansion and ultimately Post- Contact. Settlement - AD 1000-1400 It is believed that initial Polynesian discovery and settlement of the Hawaiian Islands occurred between approximately AD 1000 and 1200. (Kirch) This effectively started the ‘Settlement’ phase. The rich valley bottoms which later they would clear, terrace, and irrigate for wet-taro cultivation, were in their pristine state, dense jungle, probably covered mostly with the hau shrub which, where it runs wild, produces a dense, tight jungle. For this jungle the first settlers had no use. What taro tops they had, they planted along the banks of the streams, as taro is still planted along the banks of irrigation and drainage ditches. If they had sweet-potato shoots, these were planted in sandy soil near their huts. It is more likely, however, that the first settlers had little or nothing to plant. The plants and more settlers were probably brought by canoes sent back to the homeland. For generations, the small, slowly growing population clustered around shore sites near streams that supplied them with water. Such sites are best for inshore fishing. Hawaiian Footprint (OHA & TNC) over Google Earth – Pink Areas Note Areas used by Hawaiian (Precontact) © 2017 Ho‘okuleana LLC 1 Fishermen and their families living around the bays and the beaches, or at isolated localities along the coast where fishing was practicable, led a life that was materially simpler than that of planters who dwelt on the plains.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012, Species Reports—Listings And
    Tyler Gerken HERS 07/05/19 References: 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012, Species reports—Listings and occurrences for Hawaii: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System, accessed at http://ecos.fws.gov/ tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=HI. 2. Price, Jonathan P., Samuel M. Gon, James D. Jacobi, and Dwight Matsuwaki. 2007. Mapping Plant Species Ranges in the Hawaiian Islands: Developing a Methodology and Associated GIS Layers.” Technical Report 8. Hawaiʽi Cooperative Studies Unit. 3. Price, Jonathan P., and Warren L. Wagner. 2004. “Speciation in Hawaiian Angiosperm Lineages: Cause, Consequence, and Mode.” Evolution 58 (10): 2185–2200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01597.x. 4. Fortini, Lucas, Jonathan Price, James Jacobi, Adam Vorsino, Jeff Burgett, Kevin Brinck, Fred Amidon, et al. 2013. “A Landscape-based assessment of climate change vulnerability for all native Hawaiian plants.” HCSU-044. Hawaiʻi Cooperative Studies Unit: University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo. 5. Price, Jonathan P., Samuel M. Gon, James D. Jacobi, and Dwight Matsuwaki. 2007. “Mapping Plant Species Ranges in the Hawaiian Islands: Developing a Methodology and Associated GIS Layers.” Technical Report 8. Hawaiʽi Cooperative Studies Unit. 6. Carr, Gerald C. 2006. “Native Hawaiian Plant Genera.” University of Hawaiʻi Botany Department. 2006. http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/natives.htm. 7. Handy, Edward Smith Craighill, Mary Kawena Pukui, and Katherine Livermore. 1934. Outline of Hawaiian Physical Therapeutics. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, 126. Honolulu, Hawaii. 8. Nagata, Kenneth M. 1971. “Hawaiian Medicinal Plants.” Economic Botany 25 (3): 245–54. 9. Chun, Malcolm Naea. 1986.
    [Show full text]
  • Geothermal Public Health Assessment
    FINAL REPORT Geothermal Public Health Assessment FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Submitted By Peter S. Adler, PhD PROJECT DIRECTOR On Behalf of The Geothermal Public Health Assessment Study Group SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 The Original Geothermal Public Health Assessment Study Group 1 Jay Bondesen Alfred Dettweiler Daniel DiDomizio * Edward Fisher * James Haefner LaRee Ann Hiltner Robert Petricci René Siracusa A. Jeff Sutton Laura Travis Thomas Travis Maile Tuali‘i * __________________________________________ Peter S. Adler, PhD Project Director 1 Due to other commitments, Dan DiDomizio, Maile Tuali‘i, and Edward Fisher were unable to complete their participation in the Study Group’s 9-month process. GEOTHERMAL PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT • SEPTEMBER 2013 2 Table of Contents PAGE Original Geothermal Health Study Group 2 Acknowledgements 5 Partial List of Terms & Abbreviations 6 Executive Summary 8 I Introduction & Background 13 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Initiation 14 Goals & Deliverables 15 Caveats to This Report 15 Initial Interviews 18 Selection of Study Group Members 21 Charter of Commitments 23 Study Group Meetings 23 II Setting & Context ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Setting 24 The Kīlauea East Rift Zone 25 Geothermal Development in Puna 26 Environment & Health Problems
    [Show full text]
  • 'Aina: Ke Ola O Na Kanaka 'Oiwi
    Student Name A VOYAGE TO HEALTH Date Land: The Health of Native Hawaiians Class Period ‘Aina: Ke Ola O Na Kanaka ‘Oiwi by Noa Emmett Aluli, M.D. and Davianna Pomaika’i McGregor, PhD Our mo’olelo flows along a course inspired by our ‘aumaku and akua and informed by our kupuna. A reflection on the role of the land in the health of Native Hawaiians must begin with the origins of Native Hawaiians from the life forces of the land, as traced through mo’oku’auhau or family genealogies. From this source, emerges the central role of the land in the health and well-being of Native Hawaiians, and unfolding from this relationship, Native Hawaiians have long believed in the power of the land to heal individuals, families, communities and the nation. Specifically, Native Hawaiians have identified specific places and natural resources which have healing powers. The healing places are visited and honored during key events in the cycle of life, from conception, to birth, family relations, death and beyond. Resources of the land - stones, water, and plants - are used for healing and for nourishment. In taking care of the land, Native Hawaiians provide for our own health and nourishment. This is conveyed, for example, in the traditional saying, He ali’i ka ‘aina; he kauwa ke kanaka / The land is a chief; humans are its servants. The land has no need for humans, but humans need the land and work upon it for livelihood.1 Finally, the ancestral lands passed on to Native Hawaiian descendants from our ali’i, the monarchy, and our kupuna are integral to the health and well-being of Native Hawaiians as a people.
    [Show full text]