This week I read a paper that quickly felt unusual among the scientific publications I’ve encountered in my career. The abstract was in a familiar format, but then in the introduction, the authors–using a narrative style–invite the reader into their world:
“You have come to Hilo to the USDA Forest Service to visit the hālau (traditional Hawaiian school of learning). You arrive, park your car, and wait a little bit. If you leave your car now, you will be drenched because Hilo is still raining until we can bid Hurricane Lane “aloha” and greet the next storm. What was his name? Anyway, someone runs out wth [sic] umbrellas to bring you into the lānai (outdoor covered area) where we meet before transforming the facility’s conference room into our learning space. As you transition from dry to wet, your attention turns to the voices of men, women, children swelling and pulsing with song in rhythm with the pakapaka (pitter patter) of the rain. You do not even notice that your left shoe is soaked through to the sock. As you get closer, your vision glimpses a wonderful eclectic collection of the world in welcoming, chanting you into Hālau ‘Ōhi’a.” – Kealiikanakaoleohaililani et al., 2018
Although this was not quite what I had expected, I was curious to see where this would lead. So I continued on.
I chose to read this 2018 paper, “Ritual + Sustainability Science? A Portal into the Science of Aloha“, for two reasons. First, it is part of Biocultural Restoration in Hawaiʻi, a Special Issue in the journal Sustainability. This special issue contains a wealth of papers on my topic of interest (restoration) in the place where I currently live, and I’m excited to continue reading from this collection. Second, I recognized several of my colleagues’ names among the list of co-authors, and I wanted to learn more about their work.
This paper weaves together many threads related to bringing traditional Hawaiian ritual into conservation work, and I found many gems within. In the current article, I take a look at one of these threads.
Towards the end of the paper, I came across a section that gave me food for thought:
“…when you come to know a place on these levels—physically, emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, historically—the place becomes part of your genealogical story and you begin to treat the place differently. This may seem strange to those committed to objective purity, but most conservation educators know it is a personal connection between child and forest plant or animal, the awe of a volunteer in the power of planting a tree knowing that the tree will live 300+ years and support countless generations of forest birds, and the love of place that most often drives people to sacrifice so much for the protection of a place dear and near. It could be argued that connection to and reverence for place is a force like no other in the management of lands, waters and seas, and so for thriving stewardship.” – Kealiikanakaoleohaililani et al., 2018
That last sentence really stood out to me. As I understand, long-term commitment is often a critical factor that determines whether or not a restoration project succeeds. And the authors of this paper make the case that cultivating personal connection to an area through ritual is an effective way of ensuring that type of success. Examples of such rituals include sharing intentions with the land, learning about the land’s history, and spending time observing the land with the senses.
In fact, this type of observation ritual is something I recently took part in during a forest restoration volunteer day at Puʻuwaʻawaʻa, which I wrote about in a previous article. After arriving at the restoration site but before beginning any work, each of us found our own spot and engaged in 10 minutes of kilo (observation) practice. I chose a patch of hay where I lay down and closed my eyes to more fully engage my hearing, touch, and smell. After the kilo practice, we gathered as a group to share what we observed. Our guide mentioned that each work day starts with this kilo practice (or ritual).
The spiritual and relational value of this kilo practice was readily apparent to me. But reflecting on that experience in the context of the “Ritual + Sustainability Science” paper, it occurs to me that observation is also foundational to good science.
The part from the quote above about a personal connection to place feeling “strange to those committed to objective purity” also landed for me, because I’ll admit I’m at least partly one of those people. It’s not that I don’t have my own rituals or sense of personal/spiritual connection to nature; I do. But for a long time, I’ve experienced a tension between my personal and professional connections to nature, which often feel at odds with one another. A couple of my earlier articles, such as those on the invasive species concept and on differing views about restoration, hint at this tension.
But in large part, I’ve striven to keep aspects of my personal and spiritual connections to nature separate from my work (e.g., research, notes, publications). For example, in my graduate research, I thought of some of my botanical collections as a “mystical quest” of sorts:
But you will find no reference to such a quest in my wild hop paper or dissertation that resulted from this work. I feel that doing so would be counter to the norms of mainstream science. So while my personal connections to nature are alive in me at work, I still keep them separate from the work itself.
I think that many people who choose careers in the environmental sciences do so because of a personal connection to nature. So the question isn’t whether or not such connections exist in conservation professionals. Rather, the question that “Ritual + Sustainability Science” brings up for me is whether the field at large is ready to consider formalizing connection-building ritual as part of conservation/restoration work.
Now, it’s not that no one is doing this type of work. Take for example, the members of Kaiāulu Pu‘uwa‘awa‘a and Hālau ‘Ōhi’a. But I don’t think this type of practice is widespread in science. I wonder what it would look like if restoration protocols included formal rituals of building personal connection to the land, such as pausing to observe and ask permission before beginning work.
References
Kekuhi Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, Natalie Kurashima, Kainana S. Francisco, Christian P. Giardina, Renee Pualani Louis, Heather McMillen, C. Kalā Asing, Kayla Asing, Tabetha A. Block, Mililani Browning, Kualii Camara, Lahela Camara, Melanie Leilā Dudley, Monika Frazier, Noah Gomes, Amy Elizabeth Gordon, Marc Gordon, Linnea Heu, Aliah Irvine, Nohea Kaawa, Sean Kirkpatrick, Emily Leucht, Cheyenne Hiapo Perry, John Replogle, Lasha-Lynn Salbosa, Aimee Sato, Linda Schubert, Amelie Sterling, Amanda L. Uowolo, Jermy Uowolo, Bridget Walker, A. Nāmaka Whitehead, Darcy Yogi. “Ritual + sustainability science? A portal into the science of aloha.” Sustainability 10, no. 10 (2018): 3478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103478
Kawika B. Winter, Kevin Chang, and Noa Kekuewa Lincoln, eds. “Biocultural Restoration in Hawaiʻi.” Special issue, Sustainability 11, no. 1 (2019). https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/Biocultural_Restoration
AI RESPONSIBILITY RUBRIC
This rubric shows human vs AI contribution across stages of developing the article. It was generated by AI and reviewed by human, making adjustments as needed.
--------------------
CONCEPT/PLANNING
Human 60% | AI 40%
[============........]
Human identified the source material, selected the focus, and provided the core ideas. AI contributed to clarifying the central argument and developing the article's structure.
--------------------
RESEARCH/VERIFICATION
Human 80% | AI 20%
[================....]
Human conducted all independent reading and note-taking. AI assisted with verifying specific claims against the source material.
--------------------
WRITING
Human 90% | AI 10%
[==================..]
Human wrote all drafts. AI contributed structural guidance that informed the drafting process.
--------------------
EDITING/REFINEMENT
Human 50% | AI 50%
[==========..........]
Collaborative editorial process across multiple drafts, addressing grammar, logic, and citation accuracy. Human evaluated and acted on suggestions.
--------------------
AI Tool: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic)