Ēwe Hānau o ka ʻĀina: A Policy Review Focused on Hawaiʻi’s Public Land Trust

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are some serious problems that need attention. This manuscript should be largely revised and resubmitted.

1.     This is an international journal. The introduction of the manuscript does not link the relevant research topic in Hawaii with the international literature. This paper focuses on the context of Hawaii. But the applications of its arguments beyond this geographical context are not explored and explained.

2.     What is the originative contribution of this research remains very unclear. Although this paper is informative, it remains largely descriptive. What is the theoretical framework of this research? What are the theoretical implications of this research? What is the novel/original contribution to the existing knowledge/literature/theories on public land issues? These issues should be highlighted in the introduction, literature review, and conclusion.

3.     This manuscript lacks the section of literature review. The authors should provide some theoretical backgrounds and review the existing relevant studies before moving on to the presentation of the methodology.

4.     In the methodology part, the authors should clarify why it mainly use critical policy analysis, rather than other qualitative and quantitative methods.

5.     The part of result findings remains largely descriptive.

Author Response

We greatly appreciated Reviewer 1’s comments and advice on how to improve the framing of the paper. We believe that we have addressed the Reviewer comments by adding a robust literature review section as well as better explaining our methodology. 

1. The introduction of the manuscript does not link the relevant research topic in Hawaii with the international literature. This manuscript lacks the section of literature review. The authors should provide some theoretical backgrounds and review the existing relevant studies before moving on to the presentation of the methodology.  What is the originative contribution of this research remains very unclear. What is the theoretical framework of this research?

Response: We have added a literature review section where we situate this paper within the broader global context. In particular we discuss the importance of land to Indigenous communities. We have provided background on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which requires the free, prior, informed consent of Indigenous communities when settler nations engage in policy decisions. Finally, we have incorporated a discussion of the theoretical framework in the literature review.

1. In the methodology part, the authors should clarify why it mainly use critical policy analysis, rather than other qualitative and quantitative methods.

Response: Critical policy analysis focuses on exposing inconsistencies between what policy says and what policy does, particularly in terms of power relationships in society. This emphasis positions critical policy analysis to expose dimensions of policy outcomes that may be under-examined through other policy analysis frameworks, such as stage heuristic frameworks or other stage-specific research models. Because Indigenous people have a history of being disenfranchised and Native Hawaiians, in particular, lack some of the rights other Indigenous communities have in the US making critical policy analysis a strong fit. 

1. The part of result findings remains largely descriptive

Response: The methodology of policy surveillance is a deep descriptive process and is similar to a systematic literature review, but with laws. Gathering, analyzing, and extracting data is academically rigorous. However, we would like to point out that in providing an analysis of Hawaiʻi’s consultation laws, we were able to categorize them into three emerging themes. To address the reviewers concerns, we added additional analysis of the gaps within the Hawaiʻi consultation laws in the Results section.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper looks interesting. However, consider the concerns below:

1. The abbreviation on line 37 (OHA) was not used before. Maybe it can be used on the previous line (36). 

2. Is it correct to include the findings in the introduction? See the last paragraph from line 67 to 74. 

3. The number given to section 2.1 (line 116) is confusing if this section is not part of the methodology. 

4. Is it necessary to include the figure 1 and table 1  in the appendix while there are already in the main text?

Author Response

We appreciate the detail oriented review that  Reviewer 2 provided. Their suggestions were very actionable and we have addressed all of them. 

1. The abbreviation on line 37 (OHA) was not used before. Maybe it can be used on the previous line (36).

Response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s careful attention to detail.  We have made this correction. 

1. Is it correct to include the findings in the introduction? See the last paragraph from line 67 to 74. 

Response: The last paragraph of the introduction provides the roadmap for the paper and to orient the reader to what they should expect from the remainder of the paper. We believe that the findings discussed are high level and appropriate for this section.

1. The number given to section 2.1 (line 116) is confusing if this section is not part of the methodology.

Response: These numbers were added after submission, however, based on reviewer feedback we have made significant revisions to the structure of the paper, including the methodology section.

1. Is it necessary to include the figure 1 and table 1  in the appendix while there are already in the main text?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer catching this error. The figure and table are intended only for the main text of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article  Ēwe hānau o ka ʻāina: A policy review focused on Hawaiʻi’s 1 Public Land Trust aims to assess the issue of Native control over share  of revenue from PLT lands over time. This topic is of high interest in the context of ongoing changes and interest in the topic of land governance and self-determination,  I applaud the authors for taking it on. However, the paper would benefit from major revisions.

In its current form, it is not yet clear, what the article is actually about, i.e. what broader debate it is related to (Why does it matter?), what contribution it makes to what kind of topic/literature, or what the major research questions are. Also, the introduction would need to introduce the structure of the paper, including what part addresses what question. Nor is the historical part integrated well with the recent history. For historical institutionalism to work, there needs to be a consistent (well-explained) set of categories that are traced across time. The paper does not provide this. Also, it seems as if it were to confuse Share with Representation? It never provides detailed data on the actual revenue share, nor on what was done with the revenue. IWho gets something? How does revenue as a category support claims of self-determination or self-responsibility? Unclear. Similarly, the historical chapter brushes over inequities of the feudal system, whereas the current storyline of pre-annexation harmony and post- annexation problems really is too simple. So, when taking the two timelines, please provide data in the same categories to compare. Or only study Native control in one era. Otherwise, the paper remains unfocused.

Some comments in greater detail:

 The introduction is inconsistent, and does not inform the reader what the article is about. Along these lines, for instance, figure 1 remains unclear – what does it mean/portray? The framework is not explained, neither are the different elements stated above. Poor reader orientation.

Regarding Materials and Methods, it remains unclear on what basis the historical review has taken place. It is very selective, and uncritical with inequities of the feudal period (in comparison with today). Native Hawai’ians are treated fairly essentialist;  diversity of Native political agency remains overlooked.

Historical Review (Development of the Native Hawaiian Share of PLT Revenue) – too long. Please explain what the review is about. What is the focus, why. Reconsider the uncritical (idealized) treatment of the feudal era. Also, the title is misleading of the Chapter 2.1 – hardly about revenue.

It would be good to explain the legal system and role of laws you study from the start. It remains quite blurry.

Also, it would help to include a description of the changing OHA institution over time and/or in comparison with old system – so what changes? Example elections – who is eligible to vote/be elected? What is the revenue spent on (does that change over time?)

 What do you understand under the terms self-determination and Self-responsibility in view of control and revenue? I.e. it still remains unclear what control means in the context of PLT revenue and OHA. Control over how lands are used? Who gets lands? Over revenues? Are these spent on public infrastructure? Etc. How is this an institution of collective action? Etc. What does “bettering” of Native Hawai’ians mean? What problems are they facing specifically? Etc.

Summary does not make clear either what the article was about or what it contributes to.

Author Response

We greatly appreciated the level of detail that Reviewer 3 provided. Given the depth of the comments we combined some of the feedback provided for ease of response. We have no doubt that the quality of this paper was greatly improved as a result of addressing these comments and are very grateful for the time and attention that this Reviewer provided to our manuscript.

• General: aims to assess the issue of Native control over share  of revenue from PLT lands over time. This topic is of high interest in the context of ongoing changes and interest in the topic of land governance and self-determination, I applaud the authors for taking it on. However, the paper would benefit from major revisions

Response: We are pleased that the importance of the topic, especially in light of Indigenous self-determination, was evident in the original manuscript. We have accepted many of the suggestions that Reviewer 3 provided and believe that it has improved the clarity and quality of this manuscript.

• Introduction: In its current form, it is not yet clear, what the article is actually about, i.e. what broader debate it is related to (Why does it matter?), what contribution it makes to what kind of topic/literature, or what the major research questions are. The introduction is inconsistent, and does not inform the reader what the article is about. The introduction would need to introduce the structure of the paper, including what part addresses what question.

Response: We have made significant revisions to the structure of the manuscript, including providing additional context on this topic. Framing the paper within the context of international Indigenous human rights and articulating the concerns around Native Hawaiian self-determination, we believe, have better articulate how this article contributes to the literature. Finally, we have made some structural changes that bring out the roadmap of the paper making it easier for readers to follow. 

• Background: the historical part integrated well with the recent history. For historical institutionalism to work, there needs to be a consistent (well-explained) set of categories that are traced across time. The paper does not provide this. When taking the two timelines, please provide data in the same categories to compare. Or only study Native control in one era. Otherwise, the paper remains unfocused.

Response: We have made significant changes to the Background section during the revision process and we believe that these changes have addressed the concerns around integration. 

• Background: There is confusion Share with Representation?

Response: The paper explores both the share itself, and the important question of who manages the share. We have provided some clarifying language in order to clarify these two concepts. As the authors show, while the Native Hawaiian right to the share remains, Native Hawaiians lost effective control over the trust entity that manages the share.

• Background: the historical chapter brushes over inequities of the feudal system, whereas the current storyline of pre-annexation harmony and post- annexation problems really is too simple. Reconsider the uncritical (idealized) treatment of the feudal era.
  Methods: Regarding Materials and Methods, it remains unclear on what basis the historical review has taken place. It is very selective, and uncritical with inequities of the feudal period (in comparison with today).

Response: We have respectfully disagree with the description that the Native Hawaiian land management system was feudal. Recent scholarship from Carlos Andrade, Mehana Vaughn, Lilikalā Kameliʻihiwa, Haunani K. Trask, and others have clarified that earlier settler-driven descriptions of the Native Hawaiian land management system were inaccurate. Moreover, Hawaiʻi’s current land tenure system has been referred to as an oligarchy by the US Supreme Court, which reinforces the present-day inequities that exist. Given this, we believe that we have provided an accurate, unbiased, and fair description of the traditional land management system. Finally, we have provided additional information in the methods section that explains our methodology.

• Background: Native Hawai’ians are treated fairly essentialist;  diversity of Native political agency remains overlooked.

Response: As Native Hawaiians, the authors appreciate the complexity of this issue. However, recent scholarship on Indigenous agency, which has been summarized in the newly formed literature review, substantiates that Hawaiian leaders made active and conscious decisions, especially during the era in question. 

• Background: Along these lines, for instance, figure 1 remains unclear – what does it mean/portray? The framework is not explained, neither are the different elements stated above. Poor reader orientation.

Response: We agree that our inclusion of this figure could be improved with explanation. Upon reflection the use of the term framework has created confusion as we intended it to describe the framework of the policy. Instead this figure visualizes the structure of the PLT, which we have renamed and provided additional explanation in the Introduction.

• Background: Historical Review (Development of the Native Hawaiian Share of PLT Revenue) – too long. Please explain what the review is about. What is the focus, why.

Response: We appreciate this feedback and have done three things to address this comment. First, as part of the restructuring of this manuscript we have moved some of the content to the literature review. Second, we have provided several sentences that help to frame the intent of this section. Third, we made significant edits, including revising the content to only include background that we felt was critical to understand the paper’s arguments. 

• Background: the title is misleading of the Chapter 2.1 – hardly about revenue.

Response: We have made significant revisions to the structure of the pape, including to the methods and Policy Analysis sections. However, we would like to note that while 2.1 had to be revised significantly, the intent of this section is to trace the development of the inclusion of Native Hawaiians in the PLT revenue distribution.

• Introduction/Background: explain the legal system and role of laws you study from the start. It remains quite blurry.

Response: We agree that we could provide more context for the legal system vis-a-vis Native Hawaiians and have included a paragraph in the introduction that situates Native Hawaiians within the US and State legal systems as well as the legal status of Native Hawaiians. 

• Background: include a description of the changing OHA institution over time and/or in comparison with old system – so what changes? Example elections – who is eligible to vote/be elected? What is the revenue spent on (does that change over time? It never provides detailed data on the actual revenue share, nor on what was done with the revenue. Who gets something? How does revenue as a category support claims of self-determination or self-responsibility?

Response: To address this feedback we have provided additional background on the OHA, its election process, and those eligible to run for trustee in the Introduction. 

• Background: What do you understand under the terms self-determination and Self-responsibility in view of control and revenue? I.e. it still remains unclear what control means in the context of PLT revenue and OHA. Control over how lands are used? Who gets lands? Over revenues? Are these spent on public infrastructure? Etc. How is this an institution of collective action? Etc. What does “bettering” of Native Hawai’ians mean? What problems are they facing specifically? Etc.

Response: To address this suggestion we have done two things. First, we have provided some additional content in the background section that delves into the terms self-determination for Native Hawaiians and how OHA operates. Second, in the literature review section we had provided a summary of legal scholarship around self-determination for Native Hawaiians and the PLT.

• Conclusion: Summary does not make clear either what the article was about or what it contributes to

Response: We have revised the Conclusion in order to better articulate the article’s main focus, which is that the intent of the PLT included engaging Native Hawaiians in the decision-making process around the use of PLT revenues, which because of certain changes in the legal framework was diminished and not addressed through other consultation laws. As a result, a consultation policy should be created within OHA to re-align with the intent of the PLT. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

for future work on self-determination, it would be useful to lay open what exactly you are arguing for. Your presumption about what self-determination is,  why it is important, why it makes a difference. This remains blurred throughout the text, partially, because Native Hawaii'ans are treated as ONE. I am sure there is a heterogeneity of voices as is elsewhere. Also, how are individuals selected for consultation to ensure adequate representation of Native heterogeneity etc - all that remains blurry.