An important aspect of this discussion was that some participants worked in protected mauka areas, while others worked in heavily invaded lowland areas. As such, the conversation emphasized the contrasting settings, and opportunities and challenges in both. The exchange eventually skewed toward lowland wet forest restoration projects with more community engagement. 

 

The group started with four climate change-resilient restoration strategies (see Table 1). While placing outplants into favorable microsites may be straightforward, the participants emphasized a need to create or alter site microclimate to improve planting success. This was further discussed in developing successional planting plans, where some programs use nurse trees/logs or other plants as shade structures to create favorable conditions that encourage/ facilitate the growth of desired plants and suppress undesirable weeds. Another strategy discussed was designing a monitoring scheme to track ecosystem changes based on indicators relevant to wet forest restoration. Participants noted that tracking trials to document successes or failures is a valuable practice, providing key data to inform planning. Additionally, restoration practitioners are exchanging knowledge and information, both formally and informally. They identified some unexpected barriers requiring additional experimentation, such as shifting plant traits over time–due to ontogeny or responses to changes and creating planting beds utilizing non-native forest species, following the “novel ecosystems” approach.

 

Two steps were articulated to support designing a monitoring scheme to track state changes based on indicators relevant to wet forest restoration.

 

Monitoring Best Practices

A broad spectrum of data and observations are available to inform management. Monitoring approaches to capture and record these observations also vary from basic to more advanced techniques, ranging from photopoints and repeat photography to remote sensing. Useful research into the best practices and available technologies to assist in establishing monitoring plots and practices would help managers implement monitoring in ways that match their capacities and expertise levels. Coordination is needed to help develop guidance on monitoring best practices. but in highly trafficked areas, data collection could be boosted by engaging the community with signage/QR codes to participate as citizen scientists/stewards. 

 

While specific monitoring focal areas (sites and ecological processes) have yet to be determined, a priority effort includes developing a generalizable monitoring workflow and timeline that clearly describes monitoring tasks and steps. These tools could help make the otherwise intimidating work of monitoring more approachable and adaptable for partners balancing limited resources–and thus more successful. Data collection, data management, data interpretation, and finally, applying insights to inform practice take time and coordination. 

 

Collaboration with community science partners may help partners overcome perceived shortcomings in expertise or resources to carry this out on their own. Thus increasing the availability of user-friendly protocols and best practices is key, along with a collaborative learning framework so that these can be discussed, adapted, and improved over time. Ultimately, ensuring that both social and ecological values, metrics, and standards are represented in the monitoring process is critical. Key partners for data analysis include college faculty and students, and other entities such as NRDS that might support data management including a potential partnership dashboard that centers on common or complementary citizen science/community science efforts.

 

Sharing knowledge, access, and information

While mechanisms for knowledge exchange exist, there is a need to strengthen and expand these opportunities. The participants and focal topics for exchange would vary given the varying contexts of wet forest stewards. For those working in the wao kānaka, or more heavily invaded and populated lowlands, a focus is on volunteer recruitment. Participants noted that volunteer recruitment works through different modes, including word of mouth, social media, websites,  and mailing lists. For those working in the wao akua, or harder-to-access uplands, there was broad interest in how to engage in protection of natural resources with limited fiscal/ personnel resources, navigating permitting systems, and how to sustain dialogue and partnerships with landowners and other organizations.

 

Meaningful knowledge sharing and facilitating access to information takes complex coordination, engaging with previously overlooked groups, and establishing equitable standards of “success.” Incorporating community engagement can lead to a more holistic approach in management. Key partners include more volunteers.

 

Ultimately, monitoring should help advance restoration project goals and not be more complicated than needed. Monitoring that is easy to carry out and easy to analyze in a timely manner, is more likely to be immediately useful and long-term sustainable with the potential to have an inter-generational impact. Developing durable monitoring schemes also leads to more consistent engagement. Framing monitoring in this way can act to bridge the gap between hard science, management practices and community. It facilitates learning and a better understanding of strategies, interactions, species–that work and donʻt work. Furthermore, engagement with community, guiding people in their management practice thus deepening a connection with the land and resulting in fully restored forests with ecosystem, cultural and community functions.