NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 30

National Coral Reef Monitoring Program 

Socioeconomic Monitoring Component 

Summary Findings for Hawaiʻi, 2015 

NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program

Silver Spring, MD 

February 2018

United States Department 

of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

National Ocean Service

Wilbur R. Ross

Secretary

RDML Tim Gallaudet

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Oceans and Atmosphere and Acting 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 

and Atmosphere

Dr. W. Russell Callender

Assistant Administrator

https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/TM-NOS-CRCP-30

i 

National Coral Reef Monitoring Program 

Socioeconomic Monitoring Component

Summary Findings for Hawaiʻi, 2015 

M. Gorstein, J. Loerzel, A. Levine, P. Edwards, and M. Dillard

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

February 2018

 NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 30

United States Department 

of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

National Ocean Service

Wilbur R. Ross

Secretary

RDML Tim Gallaudet

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Oceans and Atmosphere and Acting 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 

and Atmosphere

Dr. W. Russell Callender

Assistant Administrator

https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/TM-NOS-CRCP-30
ii

About this document 

The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is to understand 

and predict changes in the Earth’s environment and to conserve and manage coastal and oceanic 

marine resources and habitats to help meet our Nation’s economic, social, and environmental 

needs. As a branch of NOAA, the National Ocean Service (NOS) conducts or sponsors research 

and monitoring programs to improve the scientific basis for conservation and management 

decisions. The NOS strives to make information about the purpose, methods, and results of its 

scientific studies widely available. 

Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) along with the National Centers for Coastal Ocean 

Science (NCCOS) uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS series to achieve timely 

dissemination of scientific and technical information that is of high quality but inappropriate for 

publication in the formal peer-reviewed literature. The contents are of broad scope, including 

technical workshop proceedings, large data compilations, status reports and reviews, lengthy 

scientific or statistical monographs, and more. NOAA Technical Memoranda published by the 

CRCP, although informal, are subjected to extensive review and editing, and reflect sound 

professional work. Accordingly, they may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical 

literature. 

A NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS may be cited using the following format: M. Gorstein, 

J. Loerzel, A. Levine, P. Edwards, and M. Dillard. 2018. National Coral Reef Monitoring

Program Socioeconomic Monitoring Component: Summary Findings for Hawaiʻi, 2015. US

Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NOS-CRCP-30, 69p. + Appendices.

For further information direct inquiries to: 

NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program 

Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/ 

http://www.coris.noaa.gov/monitoring/socioeconomic.html 

The views and analysis in this manuscript are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of 

NOAA or National Ocean Service. The content of and findings within this document do not reflect NOAA policy. 
iii

Acknowledgements 

The project investigators would like to extend our appreciation to many individuals and groups 

that made this work possible. They include: Infosurv Research and its subcontractors for carrying 

out the telephone survey; Paulo Maurin and Mike Lamier for helping to solicit jurisdictional 

input on the survey and feedback on survey results; and the many dedicated representatives of 

federal, state, and county agencies, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and 

user groups who provided input and feedback during the development of the survey. We would 

also like to thank our reviewers: Paulo Maurin, Anne Chung, and Kirsten Leong for their 

valuable comments, as well as Chloe Fleming for her editing assistance. Finally, the NCRMP 

Social Science Team wishes to extend our appreciation to all of the colleagues we have worked 

with along the way for their support, ideas, and efforts toward the greater goal of long term 

socioeconomic monitoring of our nation's coral reef states and territories.
iv

Executive Summary

The Socioeconomic Component of the National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP) is 

currently in the process of monitoring socioeconomic indicators across all United States (US)

coral reef territories and jurisdictions. These indicators fall under the following broader 

categories: the demographics of these areas, human use of coral reef resources, and knowledge, 

attitudes, and perceptions of coral reefs and coral reef management. The overall goal of this 

endeavor is to track relevant information regarding each jurisdiction's population, social and 

economic structure, society’s interactions with coral reef resources, and the responses of local 

communities to coral management. From there, these baseline data are used to develop indicators 

that describe the state of each jurisdiction and provide researchers with the ability to compare 

jurisdictions to one another. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 

Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) will use the information for future research, to assess 

the socioeconomic outcomes of management activities, and to improve the results of programs 

designed to protect coral reef resources.

This report outlines human dimensions information relevant to coral reef resources in the state of 

Hawaiʻi. For the purposes of this research, investigators focused on the inhabited islands in 

Hawaiʻi: Hawaiʻi Island (the Big Island), Oʻahu, Maui, Kauaʻi, Lānaʻi, and Molokaʻi. The 

findings here are derived from a combination of data gathered through household surveys 

conducted in November of 2014, and additional secondary sources of socioeconomic information 

for the region. 

With respect to human participation in recreational coral reef-related activities, the surveys 

demonstrated that Hawaiʻi residents participate in swimming and beach recreation most 

frequently. Additionally, just over 45% of residents indicated that they participate in fishing 

and/or gathering of marine resources. Though the sample sizes for the islands of Molokaʻi and 

Lānaʻi were not large enough to be representative of the populations of those islands, some 

differences in perceptions concerning marine resource condition were identified between 

respondents based on island of residence. For example, residents on Hawaiʻi Island tended to 

have a more positive perception of current marine resource condition when compared to 

residents from the islands of Oʻahu, Maui, and Kauaʻi. If perceptions of coral reef health truly 

vary by location, this may correlate to differing resource quality in different regions, which 

could, in part, explain the lack of consensus across counties concerning the condition of marine 

resources. Surveys also revealed that the majority of Hawaiʻi residents support a range of 

potential marine management policies and regulations, and are for the most part familiar with the 

various threats faced by coral reefs (such as hurricanes, pollution, and coastal development). For 

a visual snapshot of these survey results, please see the NCRMP socioeconomic component 

infographic for Hawaiʻi.

Unlike several US coral reef jurisdictions, the population of Hawaiʻi increased between 2000 and 

2010. In addition to a rising population, the jurisdiction faces a number of other social challenges 
v

including an increase in the state’s poverty rate and the state’s unemployment rate from 2000 to 

2010. Coupled with the increasing impact of contaminant runoff, pressures from coastal 

development, and overfishing in urban areas of Hawaiʻi (NOAA CRCP 2010), there is little 

question that human activities are having an impact on the marine and coastal environment in 

this region. 

There were key lessons learned from this first NCRMP socioeconomic data collection in 

Hawaiʻi. For example, there is a need to fine-tune the survey question pertaining to fish 

consumption and fishing activity in order to make it more specific to coral reef related fish and 

invertebrate species, as well as a need to distinguish between locally caught and imported fish. 

There is also considerable interest at the jurisdictional level to better understand ‘commercial’ vs. 

‘non-commercial’ fishing, as non-commercial fishing in Hawaiʻi is challenging to monitor, and 

little data is available. Further, local partners have communicated a need to understand key 

differences across sections of individual islands as they pertain to knowledge, attitudes, and 

perceptions of coral reefs and coral reef management. As similar surveys are implemented across 

other US coral reef jurisdictions, the NCRMP team will be making adjustments to the data 

collection effort to improve upon the type of information being generated. Thus, the findings 

contained within this report should be considered as a starting point to the development of more 

detailed research questions for future work. Surveys are planned to be repeated in each US coral 

reef jurisdiction after the completion of a full monitoring cycle, approximately once every five to 

seven years.
vi

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................................vii

List of Figures............................................................................................................................................viii

List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... ix

Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of this Report............................................................................................................................... 2

Overall Approach of the Socioeconomic Component of NCRMP ........................................................... 2

Indicator Development.......................................................................................................................... 3

Primary Data ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Secondary Data ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Geographic Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Jurisdiction Description ............................................................................................................................ 7

Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 9

2015 NCRMP Survey ............................................................................................................................... 9

Secondary Data Collection...................................................................................................................... 11

Data analysis........................................................................................................................................... 13

Results......................................................................................................................................................... 14

Results Section 1: Primary Data Indicators ............................................................................................ 14

Frequency of participation in recreational and extractive activities ................................................... 15

Participation in behaviors that improve coral reef health ................................................................... 17

Perceived resource condition .............................................................................................................. 18

Attitudes towards coral reef management strategies........................................................................... 20

Knowledge of coral reef rules and regulations ................................................................................... 21

Awareness and knowledge of coral reef functions and threats........................................................... 22

Results Section 2: Secondary Data Indicators ........................................................................................ 25

Human population composition and trends near coral reefs............................................................... 25

Community well-being ....................................................................................................................... 29

Physical Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................ 34

Economic activities related to reefs.................................................................................................... 42
vii

Results Section 3: Combination Primary and Secondary Data Indicators.............................................. 48

Governance ......................................................................................................................................... 48

Results Section 4: Island Comparisons................................................................................................... 56

Discussion................................................................................................................................................... 59

Future approaches and research ideas..................................................................................................... 61

References................................................................................................................................................... 65

Appendix A: National Coral Reef Monitoring Program............................................................................. 71

Appendix B: The NCRMP Survey Instrument ........................................................................................... 72

Appendix C: Hawaiʻi NCRMP Survey Demographic Results,

................................................................... 82

Appendix D: NCRMP Secondary Data Sources for Hawaiʻi ..................................................................... 85

Appendix E: Statistical Analyses Referenced in the Report..................................................................... 109

List of Tables

Table 1: NCRMP Socioeconomic Indicators................................................................................................ 6

Table 2: Geographic scope of current NCRMP Socioeconomic Monitoring ............................................... 7

Table 3: Hawaiʻi’s county delineations by island....................................................................................... 12

Table 4: Frequency of participation in various extractive and non-extractive reef activities (n=2,240) .... 15

Table 5: Resident opinions regarding potential management strategies for Hawaiʻi (n = 2,240)............... 20

Table 6: Population change for each Hawaiian county, 2000-2010 ........................................................... 26

Table 7: Population density in Hawaiian counties, 2000-2010................................................................... 26

Table 10: Impervious surfaces by county, 2010 ......................................................................................... 37

Table 11: Building Permits in Hawaiʻi; 2007-2016.................................................................................... 38

Table 12: Hawaiʻi Ocean Sector Economy, 2014....................................................................................... 42

Table 13: Commercial fishing harvest for coral reef fish species in Hawaiʻi, 2004-2014.......................... 43

Table 14: Non-commercial fishing harvest (in lbs) by mode of fishing for coral reef fish species in 

Hawaiʻi, 2004-2014 .................................................................................................................................... 44

Table 15: Number of non-commercial fishing angler trips by mode of fishing in Hawaiʻi, 2004-2014 .... 44

Table 16: Details of the Marine Managed Areas of Hawaiʻi...................................................................... 52

Table 18: One-way ANOVA analysis across islands ................................................................................. 57

Table E1: T-test; Tenure and Marine Resource Condition Perception ..................................................... 109

Table E2: Pearson correlation analysis; Reef Reliance and Management Support .................................. 109

Table E3: T-test; Fishing/Gathering and Management Support ............................................................... 110

Table E4: Pearson correlation analysis; Oʻahu Residence and Fishing/Gathering................................... 110
viii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Framework of composite indicators for well-being and ecosystem condition, adapted from 

Dillard et al. 2013 ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2: Map of Hawaiʻi ............................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 3: Location of sampled islands in Hawaiʻi ...................................................................................... 11

Figure 4: Frequency of fishing for various purposes in Hawaiʻi ................................................................ 16

Figure 5: Resident perceptions of current conditions of marine resources (n = 2,240).............................. 18

Figure 6: Resident opinions on change in condition of marine resources over past 10 years (n = 2,240).. 19

Figure 7: Residents’ familiarity with Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Hawaiʻi (n = 2,240)................. 21

Figure 8: Resident perceptions regarding coral reef services ..................................................................... 22

Figure 9: Residents’ familiarity with threats to coral reefs (n = 2,240)...................................................... 23

Figure 10: Residents’ perceptions of the severity of threats to coral reefs (n = 2,240) .............................. 24

Figure 11: Population Trend in Hawaiʻi ..................................................................................................... 25

Figure 12: Population density (2010) in Hawaiʻi by US Census Block and proximity to coral cover. ...... 27

Figure 13: Racial and ethnic composition of Hawaiʻi ................................................................................ 28

Figure 14: Economic Security presented as an example of operationalizing a composite indicator.......... 29

Figure 15: Hawaiʻi real GDP ...................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 16: Median household income in Hawaiʻi (inflation adjusted to 2009 dollars) .............................. 31

Figure 17: Level of poverty in Hawaiʻi ...................................................................................................... 31

Figure 18: Public assistance in Hawaiʻi...................................................................................................... 32

Figure 19: Levels of educational attainment in Hawaiʻi............................................................................. 34

Figure 20: The proximity of wastewater treatment facilities to coral reef cover in Hawaiʻi...................... 39

Figure 21: Beach Access via designated parks in Hawaiʻi ......................................................................... 40

Figure 22: Recreational boating facilities in Hawaiʻi ................................................................................. 41

Figure 23: Top sources of information on coral reefs (n = 2,240).............................................................. 48

Figure 24: Respondent level of trust in each coral reef information source ............................................... 49
ix

List of Acronyms

ABS Addressed Based Sampling

ACS American Community Survey

AQI Air Quality Index

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CATI Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing

C-CAP Coastal Change Analysis Program

CRCP Coral Reef Conservation Program

ENOW Economics National Ocean Watch

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HTA Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority

MPA Marine Protected Area

MRIP Marine Recreational Information Program

NCCOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

NCRMP National Coral Reef Monitoring Program

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS National Ocean Service

NWS National Weather Service

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OR&R Office of Response and Restoration

PIFSC Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

RDD Random Digit Dialing

SCUBA Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

US United States

USGS United States Geological Survey

WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
1

Introduction

In 2007, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Coral Reef 

Conservation Program (CRCP) underwent an external review by an expert panel to provide an 

independent assessment of the CRCP's effectiveness in meeting its mandates and to suggest 

recommendations for future improvement. Some major recommendations from the external 

review included increasing the CRCP's social science portfolio, strategically using social science 

to improve coral reef management by engaging local communities, and better assessing the 

social and economic consequences of management policies, interventions, and activities on local 

communities. In response, the CRCP Social Science Strategy (Loper et al. 2010) recommended

three priority activities: 

1. Developing of a set of national-level social science indicators related to coral reefs and 

coral reef management

2. Collecting these indicators via regular and repeated jurisdictional surveys

3. Increasing social science capacity within the coral reef conservation program.

In 2010, the CRCP created the National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP), which for 

the first time included a socioeconomic monitoring component that would improve the 

Program’s ability to track social science information in coral reef jurisdictions. The 

socioeconomic component of the NCRMP addresses the first two priorities. Because the 

socioeconomic component of the NCRMP is situated within a larger social science program 

dedicated to a range of social science activities in United States (US) and international coral reef 

jurisdictions, the results of this monitoring have a wide range of applications.

The inclusion of socioeconomic indicators in the NCRMP represents a strong step forward for 

the CRCP, which has recognized the need to integrate socioeconomic information with 

biophysical indictors relevant to the conservation of coral reef resources. The main purpose of 

the Socioeconomic Component of the NCRMP is to answer the following questions: What is the 

status of human knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions regarding coral reefs? And, how are 

human uses of, interactions with, and dependence on coral reefs changing over time? Integration 

of socioeconomic information will strengthen national coral reef monitoring and improve the 

Program’s ability to explain how people interact with coral reef resources, as well as how coral 

reef ecosystems and coral reef management strategies are perceived by the public -- issues of 

utmost interest to our partners, resource managers, and policy makers. 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has also been involved in the development 

of national-level social indicators for coastal communities (Jepson and Colburn 2013); however,

the NMFS social indicator effort is done at the community level and doesn’t include any primary 

data collected through surveys, whereas the NCRMP does include primary data and is done at 

the US coral jurisdiction level.
2

The NCRMP is an integrated long-term program designed to monitor the condition of coral reefs 

and coral reef ecosystems. The program now conducts sustained observations of biological, 

climatic, and socioeconomic indicators in US states and territories where coral reefs are present.

More information about all components of the monitoring program can be explored in “NOAA 

Coral Reef Conservation Program: National Coral Reef Monitoring Plan” (NOAA CRCP 2014) 

available at: 

ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/CoRIS/CRCP/noaa_crcp_national_coral_reef_mon

itoring_plan_2014.pdf.

Purpose of this Report

This technical memorandum presents the findings from the initial Hawaiʻi NCRMP 

socioeconomic data collection. The report presents preliminary social indicators and provides 

examples of how composite indicators can be used to analyze changes over time in a long term

setting. The main objective is to lay the groundwork for combining and comparing 

socioeconomic variables with a goal of developing meaningful composite indicators that can be 

used to examine trends in human dimensions of coral reef resources and better understand human 

influences on effective coral reef conservation. It should be noted that this report presents 

information that, in many instances, is being collected for the first time. In all instances, the 

information represents baseline socioeconomic data for the NCRMP. Some of the variables 

presented in this report identify gaps in information, and we provide suggestions on how these

gaps can be addressed in the future. 

Overall Approach of the Socioeconomic Component of NCRMP

The socioeconomic component of the NCRMP gathers and monitors a collection of 

socioeconomic variables, including demographics in coral reef areas, human use of and their 

interactions (over time) with coral reef resources, as well as knowledge, attitudes, and 

perceptions of coral reefs and coral reef management. The overall goal is to track relevant 

information regarding each jurisdiction’s population, socioeconomic characteristics, human

interactions with coral reef resources, and the responses of local communities to coral 

management actions. The CRCP will use the information in future research to assess and monitor 

socioeconomic status and change over time, to assess the socioeconomic outcomes of 

management activities, and to improve programs designed to protect coral reefs within each 

jurisdiction. Ultimately, in consultation with stakeholders, partners, and other scientists, the 

information collected will inform the development of composite indicators. The development of 

composite indicators is a method that allows researchers to measure the complex two-way 

relationship between the environment and humans, in addition to tracking the various facets of 

this relationship over time by breaking down an intellectually complex and immeasurable 

concept into its various smaller and more measureable parts to improve communication and 

policy (Schirnding 2002).
3

Each composite indicator will be created using primary data from resident surveys in the US

coral reef jurisdictions and from existing socioeconomic data collected from secondary sources 

such as the US Census Bureau and local government agencies. These composite indicators will 

include information about the population, the social and economic structures, the impacts of 

society on coral reefs, and the contributions of healthy corals to nearby residents. The composite

indicators can also be used to track and assess the status of human knowledge, attitudes, and 

perceptions regarding coral reefs and management activities related to coral reef resources. The 

indicators and the rationale for their selection are provided below in Table 1. The process of 

selecting and prioritizing these indicators can be explored further in the workshop report 

“Developing Social and Economic Indicators for Monitoring the US Coral Reef Jurisdictions” 

(Lovelace and Dillard 2012) available at: 

https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/project/626_Loper/Social_and_Economic

_Indicators_for_Monitoring_the_U.S._Coral_Reef_Jurisdictions_Workshop_Report_2012.pdf.

Indicator Development 

The indicators identified in Table 1 will be developed at the conclusion of the first full 

monitoring cycle by combining data from primary and secondary sources. The assessment of all 

US coral reef jurisdictions will draw on indicators that may be composites of multiple distinct 

measures that address the same higher level concepts such as ‘Attitudes towards coral reef 

management strategies.’ For example, Dillard et al. (2013) established a methodology for 

creating composite indicators of well-being in coastal communities, and this work will be used as 

a guide for developing composite indicators for the well-being of populations living in US coral 

reef jurisdictions. Box 1 provides a description of the conceptual framework for developing the 

community well-being composite indicators. This is an example of the way in which multiple 

measures can be used to assess a single composite indicator, such as Basic Needs or Economic 

Security, that ultimately captures aspects of a larger concept like well-being. It should be noted 

that the data presented in this report represent the current status of the collection, ultimately 

intended to contribute to the development of composite indicators. Once developed, these

composite indicators will be used to assess all US coral reef jurisdictions at the conclusion of the 

first full monitoring cycle. Both the primary and secondary data presented in this report serve as 

a snapshot of the collection and analysis of the NCRMP socioeconomic monitoring component 

for Hawaiʻi in 2015.

Primary Data

Primary data for the socioeconomic component of the NCRMP is collected via surveys

administered to individuals reporting on behalf of their households. The survey instrument is 

composed of one set of questions that remain the same for all US coral reef jurisdictions, as well 

as a sub-set of jurisdiction-specific questions relevant to local management needs. The NCRMP 

socioeconomic data are collected using a variety of modes as appropriate to the context in each 
4

jurisdiction. For example, in Hawaiʻi, address-based sampling (ABS) as well as a variety of 

random digit dialing (RDD) methodologies were employed. For all jurisdictions, the aim is a 

representative sample of the population that meets a 95% confidence level with a minimum of a 

+/-5% margin of error. The survey methodology generally follows Dillman’s Tailored Design 

Method (Dillman 1978; Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2009). It should be noted that the survey 

was developed by utilizing questions from a “bank” of over 120 questions. These questions were 

approved for use by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is responsible for 

administering the Paper Work Reduction Act (US HHS 1995). This Act ensures that the public is 

not unduly burdened (in terms of time), and that confidentiality is assured. Surveys are planned 

to be repeated in each US coral reef jurisdiction after the completion of a full monitoring cycle, 

approximately once every five to seven years.

Secondary Data

Not only is the use of secondary data ideal for the development of a sustainable, cost effective, 

and long term socioeconomic monitoring plan, but secondary data is also well suited for the 

development of composite indicators used to track population and environmental trends over 

time. Secondary data collection involves compiling data that was gathered by other organizations 

from multiple sources and across US coral reef jurisdictional geographies into a centralized 

database. The use of data sources that are collected in a standardized way over time (such as US

Census Bureau data) can help facilitate the integration of social, economic, and biophysical data 

collected under the NCRMP because integration is aided by broad spatial and temporal coverage 

of social, economic, and biophysical data. Many of the secondary datasets that provide social and 

economic data have this quality and allow for more robust analyses with biophysical data. 

Original sources for much of the secondary data presented in this report can be found in the 

secondary data sources table (Appendix D). Secondary data items included in this report, but not

listed in Appendix D, are not considered part of the formal NCRMP secondary data collection 

because they are unique to the jurisdiction or are not available in a standardized format over 

time. These items may be included in the formal NCRMP secondary data collection at a later 

time if availability across geographies increases.
5

Box 1: Composite Indicator – Community Well Being

Well-being is a concept used to assess the status of people, either individually or collectively, at different 

scales (e.g., individual, community and national; Costanza et al. 2007). Well-being assessments can be used to 

determine how people are doing in relation to an optimum standard of life experience (Doyal and Gough 1991) 

and are generally used by decision-makers to inform policies and programs focused on improving the societal 

conditions. It provides a means of tracking the relationship between communities and the environment, and a 

better means of understanding the ecosystem as a whole. When the environment is providing ecosystem 

services that communities need and desire, well-being has positive gains. Conversely, if there is decline or 

disruption in ecosystem services, we may expect a decline in well-being, particularly with increased 

dependence on these services (Butler and Oluoch-Kosura 2006; Costanza et al. 1997; MEA 2005). Being able 

to predict the consequence to humans, both positive and negative, associated with changes in ecosystem states 

is critical to informed management. 

Composite indicators that can ultimately be tracked alongside coral reef ecosystem condition will be 

employed. The composite indicators are shown in the figure below and each composite indicator is 

conceptually complex. At the conclusion of the first monitoring cycle, the coral reef jurisdictions like Hawaiʻi 

will be scored on select indicators of well-being. These scores will be compared across US coral reef 

jurisdictions and will then be used in statistical analyses with indicators of environmental condition to analyze 

the dynamic relationship between the ecosystem services that people regularly enjoy and community wellbeing.

Figure 1: Framework of composite indicators for well-being and ecosystem 

condition, adapted from Dillard et al. 2013
6

Table 1: NCRMP Socioeconomic Indicators

Indicators Rationale

1 Participation in coral reef activities 

(including snorkeling, diving, fishing, 

harvesting)

Measuring participation in coral reef activities enhances understanding 

of the economic and recreational importance of coral reefs to local 

residents as well as the level of extractive and non-extractive pressures 

on reefs

2 Perceived resource condition Assessment of perceived conditions is a complement to biophysical 

information and is key to evaluating differences in levels of support for 

various management strategies

3 Attitudes towards coral reef 

management strategies

Monitoring this information over time will be valuable to decision 

makers, as it will provide insight into possible changes in public 

perception concerning coral reef management strategies

4 Awareness and knowledge of coral 

reefs

Monitoring this information over time is key to tracking whether CRCP 

constituents understand threats to coral reefs and will help inform 

management strategies (and education/outreach efforts)

5 Human population trends (change) 

near coral reefs

Monitoring human population trends is important for understanding

increasing pressure on coral reefs, as well as reef-adjacent populations

6 Economic impact of coral reef fishing 

to jurisdiction 

Tracking the economic contributions of coral reefs can help justify 

funds allocated for coral reef protection

7 Economic impact of dive/snorkel 

tourism to jurisdiction

Tracking the economic contributions of coral reefs can help justify 

funds allocated for coral reef protection

8 Community well-being Tracking changes in health, basic needs, and economic security 

enhances understanding of linkages between social conditions and coral 

reefs

9 Cultural importance of coral reefs Measuring cultural importance improves understanding of traditional 

and cultural significance of coral reefs to jurisdictional residents, and 

whether this is changing over time

10 Participation in behaviors that may 

improve coral reef health (e.g., beach 

cleanups, sustainable seafood 

choices)

Measuring participation improves understanding of positive impacts to 

coral reefs as well as negative impacts

11 Physical Infrastructure Assessment of coastal development footprint, physical access to coastal 

resources, and waste management/water supply infrastructure provides 

general understanding of human impact on the coast

12 Knowledge of coral reef rules and 

regulations

Tracking this information over time at the jurisdictional/national level 

will inform investment in education and outreach

13 Governance Measurement of governance provides information on the current status 

of local institutions involved in coral reef conservation, number of 

functioning management strategies, and percent area of coral reefs 

under protection
7

Geographic Scope

Overall, the NCRMP focuses on the CRCP’s geographic priority areas; however, as some of 

those areas are uninhabited, the socioeconomic variables are being collected from only the 

inhabited areas. These locations and their sampling units are shown in Table 2. When feasible, 

indicators formulated at the sub-jurisdictional scale will be reported alongside biological 

indicators collected at the same scale. Efforts will be made to ensure sufficiently robust sample 

size to allow for reporting of socioeconomic indicators at appropriate sub-jurisdictional scales.

Table 2: Geographic scope of current NCRMP Socioeconomic Monitoring

Location Sampling Units

American Samoa Island of Tutuila (future collections will include the 

Manua Islands)

Florida Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe 

Counties

Hawaiʻi Islands of Hawaiʻi, Maui, Oʻahu, Kauaʻi, Molokaʻi, and 

Lānaʻi

Puerto Rico Islands of Puerto Rico, Vieques, and Culebra

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands Islands of Saipan, Tinian, and Rota

Guam Entire island of Guam

US Virgin Islands Islands of St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John

Jurisdiction Description

The Hawaiian islands make up the most southern and western state in the United States, with the 

main Hawaiian islands positioned between the 19th and 22nd parallel north. Seven of these islands 

(Oʻahu, Maui, Hawaiʻi, Kauaʻi, Molokaʻi, Lānaʻi, and Niʻihau) are permanently inhabited by 

people. The island of Hawaiʻi within the state of Hawaiʻi is also referred to as “the Big Island.” 

Owing to their location in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, Hawaiʻi’s coral reefs are exposed to 

large open ocean swells and strong trade winds that have major impacts on the structure of the 

coral reefs, and result in distinctive communities that are sculpted by these dynamic natural 

processes (Friedlander et al. 2008). The geographic isolation of Hawaiʻi has resulted in some of 

the highest endemism of any tropical marine ecosystem on earth (Kay and Palumbi 1987; Jokiel 

1987; Randall 1998). Some of these endemics are dominant components of the coral reef
8

community, resulting in a unique ecosystem that has extremely high conservation value

(DeMartini and Friedlander 2004; Maragos et al. 2004).

Hawaiʻi’s climate is classified as tropical; however, Hawaiʻi is known to experience other 

climate types depending on altitude and weather (Kottek et al. 2006). The islands receive most 

rainfall from the trade winds on their north and east flanks (the windward side) as a result of 

orographic precipitation. Coastal areas, in general, and especially the south and west sides, or 

leeward sides, tend to be drier. Hawaiʻi experiences a small annual variation in temperature 

range (Giambelluca et al. 2014) due to its close proximity to the equator and the nearly constant 

flow of ocean air across the islands.

Figure 2: Map of Hawaiʻi

Source: NOAA

The Hawaiian Islands were formed millions of years ago by a series of opening fissures along a 

narrow, northwest trending zone on the ocean floor in the central region of the Pacific Ocean. 

Molten rock issued at intervals from Earth’s interior formed along these fissures, hardened, and 

gradually piled up, eventually forming the mountain range that constitutes the Hawaiian Islands. 

Therefore, the Hawaiian archipelago was built almost entirely by volcanic activity (Macdonald, 

Abbott, and Peterson 1983). The youngest of the main Hawaiian Islands, Hawaiʻi, is still 

volcanically active and currently growing in size.
9

The Hawaiian Islands were first settled by Polynesians sometime during the 3rd to 6th century AD 

during the age of transpacific migrations. The socioeconomic connection between Hawaiians and 

the surrounding ocean environment is imperative for understanding community life in the 

Hawaiian Islands. The islands are relatively small and most towns and villages are located within

the coastal zone. As such, various aspects of local and indigenous history, culture, and society 

are closely related to the surrounding ocean and use of its resources. As a result, modern culture 

in Hawaiʻi is based on a mix of both ancient and newer practices (Western Pacific Regional 

Fishery Management Council 2016).

Oʻahu is by far the most populous island in Hawaiʻi, containing almost 70% of the state’s 

population (US Census Bureau 2015), and also hosting the state’s capital of Honolulu. Many of 

the region’s corals are in close proximity to the state’s shores (Fletcher et al. 2008), putting the 

residents in close proximity to these natural features.

Tourism is an integral part of the Hawaiian economy, producing over $6 billion in gross

domestic product (GDP) in 2014. Due to Hawaiʻi’s favorable climate and unique cultural and 

ecological features, the state is a frequently visited tourist destination for domestic and foreign 

travelers alike. These high rates of tourism, coupled with high population density near the coast, 

bring even more humans in contact with coral reef ecosystems in the region; thereby creating 

more opportunities for humans to derive ecosystem services from reefs, but also more 

opportunities for human-induced stressors to impact reefs.

Methodology

2015 NCRMP Survey

Resident surveys took place in Hawaiʻi on the islands of Hawaiʻi, Oʻahu, Maui, Kauaʻi, 

Molokaʻi, and Lānaʻi1 at the end of 2014, and will be repeated approximately every five to seven

years. The survey sampled adults, eighteen years or older, who live on one of the six above 

islands for at least 3 months out of the year. While the survey is representative of the state of 

Hawaiʻi as a whole, researchers were also able to obtain representative samples at the island 

level for each of Hawaiʻi, Oʻahu, Maui, and Kauaʻi. To align with how most secondary data is 

collected, this also allows for inferences to be made at the county level for Hawaiʻi, Honolulu, 

Maui, and Kauaʻi counties. 2

 

1 The island of Niʻihau is excluded from this data collection given that it is a privately owned island with a resident 

population of less than 200 people.

2 The NCRMP socioeconomic survey did not obtain a statistically representative sample of Kalawao County, a very 

small county on Molokaʻi that is home to Kalaupapa, a former colony for people with Hansen’s disease.
10

The Hawaiʻi survey data collection was focused on the following indicators: 

• Participation in coral reef activities (including snorkeling, diving, fishing, harvesting) 

• Perceived resource condition 

• Attitudes towards coral reef management strategies and enforcement 

• Awareness and knowledge of coral reefs 

• Cultural importance of reefs 

• Participation in behaviors that may improve coral reef health

• Awareness/knowledge of coral reef rules and regulations

More information on the general survey methods applied can be found here:

http://www.coris.noaa.gov/monitoring/resources/FAQs_NCRMP_Social_Survey.pdf, while 

details for the Hawaiʻi effort are provided below.

Surveys were conducted via telephone in November of 2014. Phone number lists were purchased 

for the six islands and included both landline and cell phone numbers. Each number from the list 

was called up to five times, at which point the number was dropped from the calling process if it 

had not yet been answered. Contracted surveyors used Computer Assisted Telephone 

Interviewing (CATI) software and offered the survey in English. A total of 567,152 unique 

phone numbers were called over the course of the survey, resulting in a total of 2,240 interviews 

(51.5% cell, 48.5% landline) for a response rate3 of 1.5% of eligible numbers (not including fax 

lines, out of service, or non-residents) and a cooperation rate4 of 28.6%. No names or personally 

identifiable information were collected during surveying. Figure 3 shows the islands that were 

sampled as a part of this survey effort. A new open-ended question was introduced into the 

NCRMP survey instrument for the jurisdiction of Hawaiʻi. The question asked respondents to 

“briefly define ‘your local community’” in reference to a previous question about community

involvement in coral reef management. This question was removed after 421 respondents 

completed the survey due to difficulty amongst the respondents in answering this question, as 

well as the increased time burden that this question caused. 

This report presents a summary of measures collected via the survey instrument and select 

measures from secondary data sources. A presentation on all survey data results for Hawaiʻi is 

available at: 

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/monitoring/SocioEconomic/NCRMPSOC

HawaiiReportOut2016_FINAL_061616_update.pdf.

 

3 Response rate is defined as the number of complete interviews with reporting units divided by the number of 

eligible reporting units in the sample.

4 Cooperation rate is defined as the proportion of all cases interviewed divided by all eligible units ever contacted.
11

Figure 3: Location of sampled islands in Hawaiʻi

Secondary Data Collection

Socioeconomic data were compiled for Hawaiʻi from secondary data sources including the US

Census Bureau, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the US Bureau of Labor Statistics

(BLS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), the National Weather Service (NWS), and local government agencies. These 

data were collected and analyzed at the jurisdiction level (and the county level when data were 

available at a finer scale). Secondary data collection included cleaning and transforming data 

prior to analyses, maintaining documentation from original sources, evaluating data for errors, 

and other data proofing procedures.
12

While primary data collection was stratified by island, most secondary data sources delineate 

sub-jurisdictional geographies by county. Therefore, when sub-jurisdictional secondary data 

were available, it was collected at the county level. Table 3 below illustrates how the main

Hawaiian islands are delineated by county. While the Census collects data separately for 

Kalawao County (a very small county on the island of Molokaʻi), secondary Census data for 

Kalawao county will not be reported on in this document given the county’s extremely small 

population (estimated at only 90 persons in 2010), and the fact that access to the county, a former 

colony for people with Hansen’s disease, is highly restricted and the area is largely run as a 

National Park Service unit.

Table 3: Hawaiʻi’s county delineations by island

Island(s) County

Hawaiʻi Hawaiʻi

Oʻahu Honolulu

Kauaʻi Kauaʻi

Maui, Lānaʻi, most of Molokaʻi Maui

Kalaupapa Peninsula, on the north coast of 

Molokaʻi

Kalawao5

The secondary data collection for Hawaiʻi was focused on the following indicators: 

• Human population change near coral reefs 

• Community well-being 

• Physical infrastructure

• Economic impact of coral reef fishing to jurisdiction

• Economic impact of dive/snorkel tourism to jurisdiction

Many of the secondary data presented in this report were taken from the NCRMP socioeconomic 

project collection as described above. More information about original sources for these data can 

be found in the data sources table (Appendix D). Secondary data items included in this report, 

but not in Appendix D, are not considered part of the formal NCRMP secondary data collection 

because they are unique to the jurisdiction or are not available in a standardized format over 

time.

 

5 Because of its small population, Kalawao County does not have the functions of other Hawaiʻi counties. Instead, it 

is a judicial district of Maui County, which includes the rest of the island of Molokaʻi. The county has no elected 

government.
13

As the secondary data collection and final composite indicator development for Hawaiʻi is in 

progress, there are several indicators that will be more comprehensively addressed by combining 

the survey (primary) and secondary data. These include indicators which benefit from both 

existing data from management plans, as well as survey data on the involvement of local 

residents in resource management decisions (e.g., Governance). At the conclusion of the first full 

cycle of monitoring, the following indicators will be developed using a combination of primary 

and secondary data: 

• Governance

• Community well-being

• Cultural importance of coral reefs

• Participation in behaviors that may improve coral health

Data analysis

Data analysis of both survey and secondary data included descriptive analyses (e.g., measures of 

central tendency, examination of distribution), as well as examinations of statistical relationships 

between variables (e.g., cross tabulations, correlation, regression analyses). Additionally, 

geospatial analyses were used to examine the extent of governance and, specifically, the amount 

of coral reef area under protected status. Some of the key findings will be discussed in the 

following sections of this report.

In order to obtain a representative survey sample for each island, certain islands were oversampled in relation to the 2010 US Census population distribution for the state of Hawaiʻi. To 

make statistical inferences concerning Hawaiʻi as a whole, post-stratification sampling weights 

were calculated based on 2010 US Census population numbers to obtain a representative sample

of Hawaiʻi’s population distribution across the islands. These post-stratification sampling 

weights were designed to alleviate the under-representation of Oʻahu residents in relation to the 

total survey sample. Therefore, with the exception of comparisons between islands,

6 any 

conclusions that are stated concerning relationships between knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, 

human use, and demographics based on the NCRMP survey data have utilized these weights in 

their calculations. It also must be noted that the following frequency tables and graphs do not 

utilize these post-stratification weights, as no statistical conclusions are being drawn from them. 

Instead, they are merely illustrating the frequency distribution of responses to each survey 

question. A full breakdown of the representativeness of the Hawaiʻi NCRMP sample compared 

to the 2010 US Census, along with the sampling weights, is available in Appendix C.

 

6 Unweighted data are used in island comparisons (Results Section 4) in order to have the necessary sample size for 

representativeness of each island. Weighted data are used in other statistical analysis to make inferences about 

Hawaiʻi in its entirety, as a stratified random sample. 
14

Coral reefs in Hawaiʻi (Photo Credit: Claire Fackler, CINMS, NOAA)

Results

Results Section 1: Primary Data Indicators

Results are reported by indicator in order to demonstrate which individual measures will be used 

to assess the indicators presented in Table 1. The first section of indicators presented includes 

those measured through the use of primary survey data; the first of which is the frequency of 

participation in marine activities related to coral reefs, as displayed in Table 4.
15

Frequency of participation in recreational and extractive activities 

Table 4: Frequency of participation in various extractive and non-extractive reef activities (n=2,240)

Non-extractive activities Extractive Activities

Frequency Swimming Snorkeling Diving 

(SCUBA 

or free)

Waterside/ 

beach 

camping

Beach 

recreation

Boating Wave riding 

(surfing, stand 

up paddle 

boarding, body 

boarding)

Canoeing

/kayaking

Fishing (for 

finfish)

Gathering of 

marine 

resources (nonfinfish)

Never 18.1% 43.3% 66.9% 47.5% 19.2% 65.5% 57.0% 66.8% 58.5% 72.8%

Once a month 

or less

27.7% 31.4% 17.2% 37.9% 37.5% 22.8% 18.7% 21.5% 22.7% 17.1%

2-3 times a 

month

14.3% 8.2% 5.4% 6.8% 18.1% 4.3% 7.0% 4.2% 7.6% 4.5%

4 times a 

month or more

38.9% 16.2% 10.1% 7.0% 24.6% 6.7% 17.1% 7.2% 10.7% 5.2%

Not sure, 

Refused, or

No response

1.0% 1.0% 0.4% 0.8% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5%

Table 4 outlines respondents’ self-reported frequency of participation in coral reef related activities. It must be noted that these results 

reflect only residents of Hawaiʻi, and do not take tourist or visitor activity participation into account. Participation in non-extractive 

recreational reef activities varies in Hawaiʻi, with the two activities that residents participate in most frequently being swimming (81%

participate) and beach recreation (80% participate).

7 Participation in fishing and gathering (extractive activities) of marine resources is 

less common, with 45% of respondents indicating that they fished and/or gathered for marine resources (41% of respondents 

indicating that they fished, and 27% of respondents indicating that they gathered marine resources).

 

7 The most direct linkage between beaches and coral reefs is through the protection afforded to beaches by coral reefs which help protect beaches from erosion 

due to wave impacts and storm events (Ferrario et al. 2013).
16

Figure 4: Frequency of fishing for various purposes in Hawaiʻi

Figure 4 displays respondents’ self-reported reasons for fishing or gathering marine resources. These questions were only answered by 

respondents who indicated that they participate in fishing and/or gathering in the previous question (Table 4). Therefore, the sample 

size for this question represents only 45% of total respondents. The most common reason for fishing among Hawaiʻi residents who

fish is “to feed myself and my family/household,” with 80% indicating that they fish to feed themselves, and 25% do so “frequently.”

Of respondents who fish, fishing “to sell” was the least chosen response, with 83% of respondents indicating that they never sell their 

catch. This finding suggests that approximately 18% of respondents who fish do so to sell their catch either rarely, sometimes, or 

frequently. 

20%

83%

36%

32%

36%

26%

7%

17% 18% 20%

29%

7%

33%

28%

31%

25%

4%

14%

22%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

To feed myself and my

family/ household

(n = 1,010)

To sell (n = 1,014) To give to extended family

members and/or friends

(n = 1,012)

For fun (n = 1,012) For special occasions and

cultural purposes/events

(n = 1,016)

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently
17

Frequency of seafood consumption

Of the 2,240 people that responded to the question “How often do you or your family eat 

fish/seafood?” over 96% indicated that they consume seafood, with almost two thirds indicating 

that they consume seafood at least once a week. When asked where respondents obtained their 

seafood from, “purchased by myself or someone in my household at a store or restaurant” was 

the most frequently encountered response, with 63% of respondents indicating that they use this 

source as their first or second choice source for seafood. This choice was followed by “purchased 

by myself or someone in my household at a market or roadside vendor” (46%).

Participation in behaviors that improve coral reef health

Respondents were also asked about their participation in environmental behaviors to improve 

coral reef health, such as participating in beach clean-ups and volunteering for an environmental 

group. Of the 2,240 that responded to this question, 81% indicated that they participate in 

environmental behavior at any frequency, and 27% of respondents indicated that they participate 

in environmental behavior at least “several times a month or more.”

Beach Clean-ups in Oʻahu (Photo Credit: Project Aware; MyDive Scuba Network)
18

Perceived resource condition

Figure 5: Resident perceptions of current conditions of marine resources (n = 2,240)

Figure 5 illustrates respondents’ perceptions of the current condition of marine resources in Hawaiʻi. Residents perceived ocean water

quality to be in the best condition, with 63% of respondents indicating that current ocean water quality was “good.” Residents

perceived the amount of coral to be in the worst condition, with 36% of respondents indicating that the current condition of the 

amount of coral was “bad;” however, amount of coral was also the resource that respondents were most unsure about, with an almost 

equal 33% of residents stating that the amount of coral was good, and 16% of respondents indicating that they were “not sure” of the

condition of the amount of coral.

16%

36%

33%

23% 24%

16% 15%

17% 16%

19%

63%

33%

38%

50%

43%

4%

16%

12% 11%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Ocean Water Quality (clean

and clear)

Amount of Coral Number of Fish Diversity of fish Size of fish

Bad Neither Bad nor Good Good Not sure
19

Figure 6: Resident opinions on change in condition of marine resources over past 10 years (n = 2,240)

Figure 6 illustrates respondents’ perceptions concerning the change in the condition of marine resource over the last 10 years in 

Hawaiʻi. Overall, only a small proportion of respondents believed that the condition of these marine resources has gotten better over 

the last decade. “Amount of coral” was the marine resource that the highest proportion of respondents felt had gotten worse over the 

last decade (45%); however, this resource was once again the one that respondents were most unsure about (12%). 

Respondents were asked how they felt the condition of marine resources will change over the next 10 years as well. Of the 2,240 that 

responded, 60% indicated that they thought that the condition of marine resources will “get worse” over the next decade, while 18% 

felt that the condition would “stay the same,” and 18% believed that the condition will “get better.” 

33%

45%

43%

34%

37%

44%

29%

32%

39%

35%

18%

14%

15% 16% 17%

5%

12%

9% 11% 11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Ocean Water Quality (clean

and clear)

Amount of Coral Number of Fish Diversity of fish Size of fish

Worse No Change Better Not sure
20

Attitudes towards coral reef management strategies

Table 5: Resident opinions regarding potential management strategies for Hawaiʻi (n = 2,240)

Management Option Oppose Neither 

Support nor 

Oppose

Support Not Sure

Better regulation of land use practices to prevent sediment from going to sea 7% 9% 81% 3%

Catch limits per person for certain fish species (size and amount) 8% 5% 84% 3%

Seasonal openings/closures of fisheries 10% 7% 79% 4%

Gear restrictions for fishing 14% 8% 72% 6%

Better treatment of wastewater 5% 3% 90% 2%

Improved law enforcement for existing rules/regulations 9% 6% 83% 3%

Community participation in marine management 4% 4% 89% 2%

Ocean zoning 11% 13% 61% 15%

Designating marine managed areas 9% 6% 80% 5%

Limited use for recreational activities (examples include diving, snorkeling, 

boating)

25% 10% 61% 4%

No-take zones 13% 9% 66% 12%

Establishment of a non-commercial fishing license 27% 9% 58% 6%

Table 5 depicts respondents’ attitudes toward various management options that were presented in the survey as common strategies 

used in the management of coral reef ecosystems. Overall, respondents were generally very supportive of all potential coral reef 

management strategies that were presented. The management option with the most support was “better treatment of wastewater,” with 

90% of respondents supporting this strategy. While the majority of respondents agreed with all of the presented management options, 

the option with the least support was “establishment of a non-commercial fishing license,” with 27% of respondents opposing this 

strategy. The management options that respondents were the most unsure about were ocean zoning and no-take zones (15% and 12%, 

respectively).
21

Knowledge of coral reef rules and regulations

Figure 7: Residents’ familiarity with Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Hawaiʻi (n = 2,240)

In order to operationalize the indicator of “knowledge of coral reef rules and regulations,” Figure 

7 displays respondents’ self-reported relative familiarity with MPAs in Hawaiʻi. It was found 

that 39% of respondents indicated that they were familiar with MPAs, and 52% were either 

unfamiliar with MPAs or unsure of their familiarity.

39%

9%

51%

1%

Unfamiliar

Neither Unfamiliar nor

Familiar

Familiar

Not sure
22

Awareness and knowledge of coral reef functions and threats 

Figure 8: Resident perceptions regarding coral reef services

Figure 8 displays respondent attitudes pertaining to the services and byproducts of healthy coral 

reef ecosystems. The majority of respondents agreed with the above statements in the graph, 

except for one item: 76% of respondents disagree with the statement “coral reefs are only 

important to fishermen, divers and snorkelers.” The statement with the highest level of 

agreement was “coral reefs are important to Hawaiian culture.”

10%

76%

9%

2%

6%

3% 5%

2%

81%

19%

83%

94%

3% 2% 4% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Coral reefs protect 

Hawaiʻi from erosion and 

natural disasters.

Coral reefs are only

important to fishermen,

divers and snorkelers.

Healthy coral reefs 

attract tourists to 

Hawaiʻi.

Coral reefs are

important to Hawaiian

culture.

Disagree Neither Agree Not Sure
23

Familiarity with threats

Figure 9: Residents’ familiarity with threats to coral reefs (n = 2,240)

Respondents were also asked about their relative familiarity with various items that pose a threat to coral reef ecosystems. Overall, 

residents were mostly familiar with the various threats faced by coral reefs (Figure 9). The majority of respondents were familiar with 

all of the threats listed in the survey, with one exception: 56% of respondents were not familiar with ocean acidification. The threat to 

coral reefs that respondents were most familiar with was pollution (84%), followed by hurricanes and other natural disasters (78%).

31%

42%

22%

16%

25%

31%

27%

38%

34%

56%

69%

58%

78%

84%

75%

69%

73%

62%

66%

44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Climate

change

Coral

bleaching

Hurricanes

and other

natural

disasters

Pollution Increased

coastal/urban

development

Invasive

species

Too much

fishing and

gathering

Damage from

ships and

boats

Impacts from

recreational

activity

Ocean

acidification

Unfamiliar/Neither/Not Sure Familiar
24

Level of threats to coral reefs

Figure 10: Residents’ perceptions of the severity of threats to coral reefs (n = 2,240)

Figure 10 illustrates respondent perceptions concerning the severity of threats facing coral reef 

ecosystems. Over half of the respondents (62%) believed that the threat severity to coral reefs is 

at least “large.” Only 2% of respondents indicated that they believe coral reefs are facing no 

threats at all. Additionally, 5% of respondents indicated that they are not sure about the severity 

of threats to coral reefs.

8%

23%

29%

33%

2% 5%

Minimal

Moderate

Large

Extreme

None

Not sure
25

Results Section 2: Secondary Data Indicators

In the following section, the measures presented for each indicator originate from various 

secondary data sources. It again must be noted, however, that most secondary data are 

aggregated at the county level which is at a different spatial scale than how the NCRMP 

socioeconomic primary data were collected (primary data were collected at the island scale). For 

a more detailed explanation of how the island and county scales compare and contrast, please see 

Table 3. The secondary data used in the development of the NCRMP socioeconomic indicators 

were selected to be specifically relevant for coastal communities adjacent to coral reef 

ecosystems. 

Human population composition and trends near coral reefs 

Figure 11: Population Trend in Hawaiʻi

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey

Figure 11 illustrates the recent ten year trend in population growth in Hawaiʻi (US Census, 

American Community Survey). The population of Hawaiʻi stayed relatively stagnant from 2006-

2009, experienced a significant increase from 2009-2010, and then continued slightly upward 

ever since. The total population in the state increased 11%, from a reported population of 

1,285,498 people in 2006 to 1,431,603 people in 2015.

1,285,498

1,431,603

1,150,000

1,200,000

1,250,000

1,300,000

1,350,000

1,400,000

1,450,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of People

Year

Hawaiʻi Population
26

Table 6: Population change for each Hawaiian county, 2000-2010

County Population Change Percent Change

Hawaiʻi 36,402 24%

Honolulu 77,051 9%

Kauaʻi 8,628 15%

Maui 26,740 21%

Source: US Census Bureau

Table 6 depicts the trend in population growth at the county level in Hawaiʻi. Each of the four

main counties in Hawaiʻi exhibited population increase from 2000-2010. Honolulu County

exhibited the most population growth from 2000-2010 in absolute terms when compared to the 

other Hawaiian counties, while Hawaiʻi County exhibited the most growth in percentage terms 

(US Census).

Table 7: Population density in Hawaiian counties, 2000-2010

County Population 

Density, 2000 

(persons per 

square mile of 

land area)

Population 

Density, 2010 

(persons per 

square mile of 

land area)

Percent 

change in 

population 

density, 

2000-2010

Hawaiʻi 36.9 45.9 24%

Honolulu 1460.8 1,586.7 9%

Kauaʻi 93.9 108.2 15%

Maui 110.5 133.3 21%

Hawaiʻi 188.6 211.8 12%

Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census of Population and Housing 

From 2000 to 2010, population density increased for each of the four main Hawaiian counties

(US Census). Hawaiʻi County exhibited the largest growth in population density (24%) over the 

course of the decade, and the overall population density of Hawaiʻi increased by 12% from 2000 

to 2010.
27

Figure 12: Population density (2010) in Hawaiʻi by US Census Block and proximity to coral cover.

Figure 12 above depicts Hawaiʻi’s population density at the Census Block level. It is widely 

understood that increased population density in proximity to coral reefs can lead to stress in the 

coral reef ecosystem (Brewer et al. 2013; Williams et al. 2008). The map illustrates an area of 

high population density (the city of Honolulu on the island of Oʻahu) in relation to coral cover

(NOAA 2007),

8 and shows how Hawaiʻi contains a few areas of high population density that 

may impact its coral reef ecosystem through stressors from development, recreation, and other 

types of anthropogenic effects.

 

8 All coral cover data for this report were obtained from The NOAA Coral Reef Information System Hawaiʻi 

Regional Portal: “Shallow-water Benthic Habitats of the Main Hawaiian Islands.”
28

Racial Composition and Age Structure of Hawaiʻi

Figure 13: Racial and ethnic composition of Hawaiʻi

Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census of Population and Housing 

As evidenced by the above figure, the racial composition of Hawaiʻi is diverse, with 24% of the 

population identifying as two or more races, the highest reported level of multi-ethnicity of all 

US states. Of those identifying with only one race, the most common was Asian (39%), followed 

by white (25%).

As for the age structure of the population of Hawaiʻi, the 2010 US Census Bureau reports that 

22% of the population was under 18 years old (24% in 2000 Census) and 14% of the population 

was 65 years or older (13% in 2000 Census). The 2010 US Census Bureau reports an overall 

median age of 38 years old for the Hawaiian population (36 years old in 2000 Census). The state 

of Hawaiʻi has the highest life expectancy of all US states (Lewis and Burd-Sharps 2014).

25%

2%

39%

10%

1%

24%

White

Black/African American

Asian

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

Other

Two or More Races
29

Community well-being

In addition to the basic demographics described above, composite indicators can be utilized to 

further explain social variance (see Box 1). Five composite indicators related to human wellbeing are being tracked as part of the NCRMP socioeconomic component: Economic Security, 

Health, Basic Needs, Access to Social Services, and Education. 

Figure 14: Economic Security presented as an example of operationalizing a composite indicator

Each composite indicator is conceptually complex. The indicators, demonstrated in Figure 14

with Economic Security, are made up of multiple of measures that, in turn, operationalize 

multiple dimensions of the composite indicator. 

At the conclusion of the first monitoring cycle, the coral reef jurisdictions will be scored on 

select indicators of well-being. These scores will allow for comparisons across jurisdictions, and 

will be used in statistical analyses with indicators of environmental condition to analyze the 

dynamic relationship between the ecosystem services that people regularly enjoy and community 

well-being. A selection of measures that will be used to operationalize the well-being composite 

indicators of Economic Security, Health, Basic Needs, Access to Social Services, and Education

are presented and discussed below.
30

Economic Security

The measures used to operationalize economic security will include gross domestic product, 

median household income, percent of the population in poverty, unemployment rate, and the 

amount of households receiving public assistance. 

Figure 15: Hawaiʻi real GDP

Source: US BEA; Real GDP by State

One of the most telling measures of economic well-being is real gross domestic product (GDP). 

Since 2000, the overall trend in Hawaiʻi’s real GDP (measured in millions of 2009 dollars) was 

upward (Figure 15). From 2000-2015, real GDP in Hawaiʻi has increased by 32%. Real GDP in

Hawaiʻi rose steadily throughout the 2000s until the Great Recession of 2007-2009, in which real 

GDP declined by 3% before it started to recover after 2009. Since the recession, Hawaiʻi’s real 

GDP has increased by 9%. The trend in real GDP in Hawaiʻi is similar to the US national trend. 

From 2007 to 2009, the US national real GDP decreased by 3% as well; and overall, US national 

real GDP increased by 30% from 2000-2015 (increased by 13% since 2009). Additionally, the 

trend in real GDP growth for each of the individual Hawaiʻi counties is similar to the trend for 

the entire state (with the exception of Hawaiʻi County recovering slightly slower after the 

recession when compared to the other Hawaiian counties). The data show that Hawaiʻi seemed to 

recover from the Great Recession at a similar pace as the nation as a whole.

According to the 2012 ACS five year estimates, 4.2% of the civilian population in Hawaiʻi aged

16 years and older were unemployed. This is an increase of 0.4% from the figure of 3.8% 

reported in the 2000 US Census.

$53,476

$64,986

$70,845

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

$75,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Real GDP (millions of 2009 dollars)

Year
31

Figure 16: Median household income in Hawaiʻi (inflation adjusted to 2009 dollars)

Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census of Population and Housing

Figure 17: Level of poverty in Hawaiʻi

Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census of Population and Housing

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

Hawaii County Honolulu County Kauai County Maui County

Real median household income (2009 dollars)

2000

2010

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Hawaii County Honolulu County Kauai County Maui County

Percent of inividuals in poverty

2000

2010
32

Real median household income, measured in 2009 dollars using the consumer price index, 

increased for each of the four main Hawaiian counties from 2000 to 2010 (US Census). The 

largest increase was observed in Kauaʻi County; and as a whole, real median household income 

for the state of Hawaiʻi increased by 5.2% from $64,155 in 2000, to $67,492 in 2010. When 

examining the poverty rate--determined to be $16,760 for a two-person family and $25,360 for a 

four-person family (US HHS 2010)--Hawaiʻi, Honolulu, and Kauaʻi Counties all exhibited a 

slight increase in poverty from 2000 to 2010, whereas Maui County exhibited a slight decrease.

For the state as a whole, the poverty rate increased by 0.4% from 10.4% in 2000, to 10.8% in

2010.

Figure 18: Public assistance in Hawaiʻi

Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census of Population and Housing

The percentage of households receiving public assistance income decreased in all of the 4 main 

Hawaiian counties from 2000 to 2010 (US Census). The largest decrease was observed in Kauaʻi

County: 7.8% of households in Kauaʻi County were receiving public assistance income in 2000, 

compared to just 3.6% of households receiving public assistance income in 2010. For the state of

Hawaiʻi as a whole, the percentage of households receiving public assistance income decreased

from 7.2% in 2000, to 3.6% in 2010. The complete well-being assessment will examine the 

percentage of the population in need that is not being served by public assistance in order to 

measure the efficacy of support services in reaching target populations. Such measures are 

important to understanding the overall vulnerability of the population, independent of stressors 

such as resource decline, severe storm events, and climate change.

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

Hawaii County Honolulu County Kauai County Maui County

Percent of households receiving public 

assistance income

2000

2010
33

Health

Health, both physical and mental, contributes tremendously to individual and population wellbeing. Measures of life expectancy, mortality, and opportunity for a healthful lifestyle can be 

used to assess a population’s health. Some of the measures that will be used as part of the 

composite indicator for health across all jurisdictions include leading cause of death, life 

expectancy, and three categories of age-adjusted death rates (from all cancers, from heart 

disease, and overall). The leading cause of death in Hawaiʻi (2010-2012) was heart disease. The 

average life expectancy (2013-2014) was 81.3 years of age. In 2010, the age-adjusted death rate 

from all cancers was 140.9 per 100,000 people, the age-adjusted death rate from heart disease 

was 134.7 per 100,000 people, and the overall age-adjusted death rate was 584.8 per 100,000 

people. It is important to track the overall health of the population in relation to the state of the 

environment, as the impact of environmental stressors on human health has been shown to have 

severe consequences. For example, a recent report finds that “the air we breathe, the food we eat, 

the water we drink, and the ecosystems which sustain us are estimated to be responsible for 23% 

of all deaths worldwide” (UNEP 2016).

Basic Needs, Access to Social Services, and Education

Basic needs, access to social services, and education are important social dimensions of wellbeing. The measures for basic needs include those related to the adequacy of housing, access to 

healthy food, and clean water. Basic needs are linked to the environment and its ability to 

provide the regulating and provisioning services necessary for water, food, and shelter. Of the 

2010 US Census Bureau reported figure of 519,508 housing units in Hawaiʻi, 455,338 (88%) 

were occupied. Of the occupied housing units, 262,682 (58%) were owner-occupied and 192,656

(42%) were renter-occupied. In 2010, the median value of owner occupied housing units in

Hawaiʻi was $508,657 (measured in year 2009 dollars), and the median age of housing units was 

33 years old. The average household size in 2010 was 3.09 persons per household. This is an 

increase of 5.8% from the figure of 2.92 persons per household reported in 2000. Similarly, the 

average family size in Hawaiʻi also increased by 3.2% from 3.42 persons per family in 2000 to 

3.53 persons per family in 2010.

In 2010, 93% of the civilian non-institutionalized population in Hawaiʻi had health insurance 

coverage. Also, as of 2010, only 8.7% of occupied households lacked access to a vehicle, and

only 2.5% of occupied households lacked access to telephone service. Additionally, fewer than 

1% of occupied Hawaiian households lacked access to complete plumbing, and similarly, fewer 

than 2% of occupied Hawaiian households lacked access to a complete kitchen (US Census). As 

of 2013, 91.4% of occupied households in Hawaiʻi had access to a computer or laptop at home; 

and of those, 91.8% had access to internet service (US Census, American Community Survey).

One of the key components of community well-being is education. K-12 enrollment, along with 

high school and college educational attainment will be combined to examine education. In 2010, 

90% of Hawaiʻi residents aged 25 and older had completed high school or higher (greater than 
34

the national average of 86%), and 30% of Hawaiʻi residents aged 25 and older had completed a 

bachelor’s degree or higher (greater than the national average of 28%). Both of these figures 

represented an increase in educational attainment since 2000, in which 85% of Hawaiʻi residents 

aged 25 and older had completed high school or higher, and 26% of Hawaiʻi residents aged 25 

and older had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher (US Census). 

Figure 19: Levels of educational attainment in Hawaiʻi

Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census of Population and Housing

Physical Infrastructure

In addition to the five community well-being composite indicators, a composite indicator of 

physical infrastructure will be monitored in order to track coastal development, access to coastal 

resources, and waste management/water supply infrastructure. Composite indicators for physical 

infrastructure relate to both the human development footprint, as well as measures in place to 

mitigate human impacts to the marine environment (e.g., point and non-point sources of landbased pollution, as well as sewage treatment and abatement). Some key aspects of physical 

infrastructure in Hawaiʻi are outlined below. 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Less than 9th

grade

9th to 12th

grade, no

diploma

High school

graduate

Some college,

no degree

Associate's

degree

Bachelor's

degree

Graduate or

professional

degree

Percent of population 25 years and older

Level of Education

2000 2010
35

Pollution

Water

Thirty-six percent of all beaches in Hawaiʻi were monitored for water quality in 2012. Of these,

34% were impacted by a beach advisory action; however, only 1.4% of beach days were 

impacted (EPA). As evidenced by Table 8, of the coastal shoreline water bodies in Hawaiʻi that 

were assessed, 67% were deemed to be “impaired” in 2014 (EPA). A waterbody is considered 

"impaired" if any one of its uses is not met (“uses” include aquatic life, recreation, fish/wildlife 

propagation water supply, fish consumption, etc., and “impairments” can be caused by a variety 

of things including bacteria, dissolved oxygen, sulfate, algal blooms, metal content, mercury, 

etc.). Along with the prevalence of pollution in Hawaiʻi’s non-coastal water bodies, this fact 

indicates that water pollution in Hawaiʻi is fairly widespread.

Table 8: Hawaiʻi water quality assessment report; 2014

Rivers 

and 

Streams 

(miles)

Lakes, 

Reservoirs, 

and Ponds 

(acres)

Bays and 

Estuaries 

(sq 

miles)

Coastal 

Shoreline 

(miles)

Good waters 244.4 0.0 2.2 56.2

Previously impaired waters now attaining all uses 0.0 0.0 1.2 11.7

Threatened Waters 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Impaired Waters 2,322.6 4.9 85.8 114.1

Total Assessed Waters 2,567.0 4.9 88.0 170.3

Total Waters 3,905.0 N/A 94.1 1,052.0

Percent of Waters Assessed 65.7% N/A 93.5% 16.2%

Percent of Assessed Waters that are impaired 90.5% 100% 97.5% 67.0%

Source: US Environmental Protection Agency; Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Tracking and 

Implementation System (ATTAINS)

Air

According to the 2014 EPA National Emissions Inventory, Hawaiʻi produced approximately

488,030 short tons of “Tier 1” emissions in the year 2014 (a 29% increase since 2011), 58.2% of 

which was carbon monoxide, and 13.1% of which was volatile organic compounds. Other 

emissions included in this figure include nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and 

ammonia. The EPA tracks daily air quality through its Air Quality Index (AQI). Table 9

illustrates the number of days under each quality condition for each of the four main counties in

Hawaiʻi. In 2014 and 2015, Hawaiʻi County experienced “unhealthy days” much more 

frequently than did the other counties in Hawaiʻi due to volcanic activity. It also should be noted 

that air quality in Hawaiʻi is affected by volcanic activity along with strength/direction of wind, 

and this could lead to differing air quality on windward and leeward sides of individual counties.
36

Table 9: Hawaiʻi air quality days by county

2015 2014

County Good 

days

Moderate 

days

Unhealthy 

for 

Sensitive 

Groups 

days

Unhealthy 

days

Very 

Unhealthy 

days

Good 

days

Moderate 

days

Unhealthy 

for 

Sensitive 

Groups 

days

Unhealthy 

days

Very 

Unhealthy 

days

Hawaiʻi 2 58 154 148 3 15 77 142 130 1

Honolulu 328 37 0 0 0 349 10 0 1 0

Kauaʻi 363 2 0 0 0 338 6 0 0 0

Maui 344 21 0 0 0 332 8 1 0 0

Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Index
37

Land cover

Impervious land cover is a good indicator of development and is also associated with land-based 

pollution that can damage coral reefs. Hawaiʻi had a total of 690.4 square kilometers of 

impervious cover out of a total of 16,663.8 square kilometers of land area in 2010

(approximately 4.1% of Hawaiʻi is impervious cover) (NOAA Digital Coast, C-CAP). Honolulu

County has the most impervious land cover out of the four main Hawaiian counties (Table 10).

Table 8: Impervious surfaces by county, 2010

County Total Land Area

(Sq. km)

Impervious 

Cover (Sq. km)

Percent of 

Impervious Cover

Hawaiʻi 10,457.7 224.8 2.1%

Honolulu 1,545.0 316.2 20.5%

Kauaʻi 1,623.7 14.0 0.8%

Maui 3,006.3 134.3 4.5%

Hawaiʻi Total 16,632.7 689.3 4.1%

Source: 2010 US Census Bureau, Decennial Census of Population and Housing and NOAA C-CAP 

As of 2013, the development of man-made shorelines in Hawaiʻi reached a total of 315.19 km 

(195.85 miles), or about 13% of the recorded total shoreline area (NOAA/OR&R 2013). For the 

purposes of this report, man-made shorelines include: 

“sheltered solid man-made structures (wooden or concrete seawalls, boat docks,

and the like that are not directly exposed to the ocean); riprap (large stones or 

other large rough cut solid materials placed on the shore to prevent or reduce 

erosion due to wave action); exposed, solid man-made structures (wooden or 

concrete seawalls, boat docks, and the like that are directly exposed to the ocean); 

and, sheltered riprap (large stones or other large rough cut solid materials placed 

on shore in an area not exposed to the ocean in order to prevent or reduce erosion 

due to wave action)” (NOAA/OR&R 2013).

The large stretch of northwestern Hawaiian Islands that lie northwest of Kauaʻi and extend to 

Kure Atoll remain largely undeveloped. As one ventures inland on any of the six inhabited

Hawaiian Islands, development becomes progressively less dense as the land transitions from a 

low-lying coastal landscape to a higher elevation volcanic landscape. 

Building Permits

Building permits are indicative of economic and development trends, and data concerning these 

permits are utilized here to further operationalize the composite indicator of physical 

infrastructure. As of 2016, the number of building permits granted has decreased by 52%, and 

the value of building permits (in inflation adjusted dollars) have decreased by 37% since 2007 
38

(Table 11). The number and value of building permits granted in Hawaiʻi has varied year to year 

since 2006, although the total value of building permits decreased between 2007 and 2011, and 

increased since then with a slight dip in 2016 (US Census Bureau 2016). These figures indicate 

that although there was a declining emphasis on built development in Hawaiʻi during the 

recession years and immediate years after the recession, the investment in new structures has 

been on the rise in recent years.

Table 91: Building Permits in Hawaiʻi; 2007-2016

Year Number of 

building permits

Value of building permits 

(nominal dollars)

Value of building permits 

(constant 2015 dollars)

2007 6,972 $1,724,319,000 $1,971,504,662

2008 4,115 $1,170,964,000 $1,289,059,485

2009 2,617 $779,010,000 $860,637,620

2010 3,442 $773,013,000 $840,230,135

2011 2,743 $653,884,000 $688,994,012

2012 2,993 $756,981,000 $781,454,941

2013 3,882 $1,019,271,000 $1,037,034,966

2014 3,066 $1,011,786,000 $1,012,986,966

2015 5,422 $1,582,395,000 $1,582,395,000

2016 3,375 $1,261,126,000 $1,245,414,930

Source: US Census Bureau; Building Permits Survey: New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized

Waste Management and Water Supply

The State of Hawaiʻi Department of Health reports that approximately 38.1% of Hawaiʻi’s 

residents used septic tanks, cesspools or some other means of sewage treatment (State of Hawaiʻi

Department of Health 2017). Of occupied households, 3,2789 (<1%) had incomplete plumbing 

facilities (US Census, American Community Survey). As of 2016, there were 14 landfill

facilities in Hawaiʻi (EPA 2016).

As of 2010, 1,304,617 people (96%) in Hawaiʻi were served by the public water supply (ground 

water and surface water), and 55,684 people (4%) were reported to be self-serviced (US 

Geological Survey 2010). As of 2012, there were 22 publically owned wastewater treatment 

facilities (WWTF) in Hawaiʻi, 18 of which are in the study area (see Figure 20). These facilities

serve approximately 800,000 people (EPA 2012). Figure 20 illustrates WWTFs in proximity to 

coral cover (NOAA 2007) throughout the main Hawaiian Islands. 

 

9 +/-432; 2011-2015 American Community Survey estimates
39

Figure 20: The proximity of wastewater treatment facilities to coral reef cover in Hawaiʻi

Physical Access to Coastal Resources

The state of Hawaiʻi has 24.4 miles of accessible, swimmable sandy beach coastline and 184.9 

miles of sandy shoreline overall. Additionally, Hawaiʻi has 250 public beach parks, an estimated 

1,600 surfing sites, and 67 boating facilities (State of Hawaiʻi Office of Planning 2006; Hawaiʻi

Department of Land and Natural Resources 2017). Beach, boating, and recreation activities are 

accessible to Hawaiʻi residents across all of the islands (see Figures 21 and 22), although many 

coastal areas are difficult to access via land due to lack of paved roads and private property 

owners restricting access.
40

Figure 21: Beach Access via designated parks in Hawaiʻi
41

Figure 22: Recreational boating facilities10 in Hawaiʻi

 

10 Includes small boat harbors, launch ramps, piers, anchorages, and deep draft harbors.
42

Economic activities related to reefs

Also relevant to the NCRMP socioeconomic monitoring component are a wide range of 

economic activities that make use of the coastal and marine environments in Hawaiʻi. These 

activities, many of which are outlined below, can have direct and indirect impacts on coral reefs.

Ocean-Related Industry

Table 102: Hawaiʻi Ocean Sector Economy, 201411

County Number of 

establishments

Number of 

employees

Wages (millions 

of dollars)

GDP 

(millions of 

dollars)

Percent of 

Total 

GDP

Hawaiʻi 565 11,489 $350.35 $776.68 11.11%

Honolulu 2,500 51,351 $1,553.53 $2,232.42 3.84%

Kauaʻi 322 4,487 $92.62 $169.94 5.17%

Maui 669 21,581 $795.07 $1,758.92 22.16%

Hawaiʻi Total 4,063 111,672 $3,883.95 $7,416.88 9.70%

Source: NOAA Digital Coast, ENOW

Table 12 shows a snapshot of the ocean sector economy in Hawaiʻi for the year 2014. These 

numbers reflect the sum of all economic activities related to the following industries: marine 

construction, living resources, offshore mineral extraction, ship/boat building, 

tourism/recreation12, and marine transportation. These aforementioned industries contributed 

roughly $7.42 billion to the economy of Hawaiʻi in 2014 (a 3.8% inflation-adjusted increase 

from the previous year), and supported 111,672 employees at 4,063 establishments in the region. 

The ocean sector in Honolulu County alone produced over $2.2 billion in GDP in 2014, and 

supported 51,351 employees at 2,500 establishments. Overall, ocean-related industry represented

just under 10% of Hawaiʻi’s total GDP in 2014, and Maui County was especially dependent on 

ocean-related industry, as these industries comprised 22% of Maui’s total county GDP in 2014

(NOAA Digital Coast, ENOW 2014).

Fishing 

Much of fishing in Hawaiʻi, both commercial and non-commercial, is coral reef dependent. Coral 

reefs provide the habitat that is necessary for several commercially important fish species such as 

 

11 Please note that due to absent information at the county level, not all columns in the table will add up to the exact 

figure for the statewide total.

12 The tourism/recreation sector for the ocean economy takes into account boat dealers, full service restaurants, 

limited service eating places, cafeterias, snack and nonalcoholic beverage bars, hotels (non-casino) and motels, bed 

and breakfast inns, marinas, RV parks and recreational camps, scenic and sightseeing transportation (water), 

sporting and athletic good manufacturing, scenic and sightseeing transportation (other), sport and recreation 

institutions, recreation goods rentals, amusement and recreation services not elsewhere classified, zoo/botanical 

gardens, and nature parks/other similar institutions (NOAA Digital Coast 2015).
43

snapper, grouper, spiny lobster, and parrotfish. Studies have shown that when coral reefs are 

healthier and more widespread, fish biomass and abundance increases as well (Vincent et al. 

2011; Friedlander and DeMartini 2002); therefore, the health of coral reefs is an important driver 

of commercial and non-commercial fishing harvest and value. While healthy coral reef 

ecosystems directly impact coral reef fish species, it is also important to note that coral reef 

ecosystems still support pelagic fish population and health as they provide critical nursery habitat 

for juveniles (Thorrold and Williams 1996; Doherty and Carleton 1997) and act as a food source 

for pelagic species that venture near the coast, such as sharks (Roff et al. 2016).

Table 113: Commercial fishing harvest for coral reef fish species in Hawaiʻi, 2004-201413

Year Harvest caught 

(in lbs)

Harvest sold 

(in lbs)

Value of Harvest 

(nominal dollars)

Value of Harvest 

(Constant 2015 dollars)

2004 923,687 785,753 $2,894,582 $3,631,896

2005 784,633 692,991 $2,686,057 $3,259,811

2006 704,686 595,053 $2,341,665 $2,753,048

2007 731,311 621,268 $2,364,538 $2,703,501

2008 781,614 649,818 $2,574,717 $2,834,385

2009 782,821 655,353 $2,722,616 $3,007,902

2010 840,672 695,403 $2,792,273 $3,035,074

2011 710,632 586,167 $2,421,408 $2,551,424

2012 766,053 657,550 $2,813,491 $2,904,454

2013 798,241 714,175 $3,116,292 $3,170,603

2014 764,951 666,972 $3,238,727 $3,242,571

Source: Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center; Western Pacific Fisheries Information Network

Table 13 displays time-series data concerning commercial fish harvest of coral reef species in 

Hawaiʻi for the years 2004-2014. Both the amount of harvest and the value of the harvest have 

fluctuated over time, but the overall trend in pounds harvested and inflation adjusted harvest 

value since 2004 is slightly downward. Since 2004, the Hawaiʻi coral reef fishery harvest in 

pounds has decreased by 17%, and the Hawaiʻi coral reef fishery harvest value in inflationadjusted 2015 dollars has decreased by 11%, indicating that the coral reef ecosystem has lost

some commercial fishing value over this time. 

 

13 Species included in these figures include: bigeyes, groupers, damselfishes, snappers, filefishes, flounders, 

goatfishes, groupers, hawkfish, parrotfishes, pufferfishes, reef jacks, rudderfish, scorpionfishes, squirrelfishes, 

surgeonfishes/tangs, tilapia, trumpetfish, wrasses, and other unknown reef fish.
44

Table 124: Non-commercial fishing harvest (in lbs) by mode of fishing for coral reef fish species in Hawaiʻi,

2004-201414

Year Shore Charter boat Private/Rental boat Total

2004 1,263,889 N/A 1,359,186 2,623,075

2005 1,070,499 N/A 938,182 2,008,681

2006 1,572,835 N/A 973,239 2,546,074

2007 395,862 N/A 478,145 874,007

2008 839,792 N/A 282,287 1,122,079

2009 402,089 N/A 282,974 685,063

2010 552,242 N/A 747,301 1,299,543

2011 557,358 N/A 364,508 921,866

2012 994,190 N/A 758,813 1,753,003

2013 1,066,438 N/A 499,475 1,565,913

2014 1,109,405 N/A 751,491 1,860,896

Source: NOAA NMFS Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP)

Table 135: Number of non-commercial fishing angler trips by mode of fishing in Hawaiʻi, 2004-201415

Year Shore Charter boat Private/Rental boat Total

2004 2,162,066 N/A 708,725 2,870,791

2005 1,892,365 N/A 578,038 2,470,403

2006 2,074,280 N/A 569,812 2,644,092

2007 2,101,730 N/A 474,941 2,576,671

2008 1,966,120 N/A 564,478 2,530,598

2009 1,721,919 N/A 441,107 2,163,026

2010 1,906,698 N/A 483,532 2,390,230

2011 1,157,684 N/A 224,029 1,381,713

2012 1,194,534 N/A 324,954 1,519,488

2013 1,215,738 N/A 297,138 1,512,876

2014 1,050,598 N/A 323,807 1,374,405

Source: NOAA NMFS Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP)

 

14 Species included in these figures include: bandtail goatfish, bigeye trevally, bigscale soldierfish, blackspot 

sergeant, blacktail snapper, Bluefin trevally, bluestripe snaper, conger eels, convict tang, dragon wrasse, giant 

trevally, goldring surgeonfish, green jobfish, groupers, Hawaiian hogfish, highfin rudderfish, island jack, manybar 

goatfish, moray eels, pink snapper, razrofishes, smallmouth bonefish, squirrel fishes, stingrays, striped mullet, 

unicornfishes, von siebolds snapper, whitemouth trevally, whitesaddle goatfish, whitetip soldierfish, yellowstripe 

goatfish, other barracudas, other butterflyfishes, other damselfishes, other goatfishes, other hawkfishes, other 

scorpionfishes, other sea chubs, other skate/rays, other snappers, other soldierfishes, other surgeonfishes, and other 

wrasses.

15 Includes angler trips targeting all fish species (i.e. not limited to coral reef angler trips).
45

Table 14 displays non-commercial fishing harvest of coral reef fish species by mode of fishing in

Hawaiʻi for the years 2004-2014, and Table 15 displays the number of angler trips taken in 

Hawaiʻi for the years 2004-2014. It must be noted that no license is required to participate in 

non-commercial fishing in Hawaiʻi. Non-commercial fishing effort in pounds harvested and in 

number of angler trips taken have both fluctuated over time as well, similar to commercial 

fishing effort. However, the overall trend for non-commercial fishing effort in Hawaiʻi since 

2004 has been downward. Since 2004, the amount of weight estimated to be harvested by noncommercial fishers targeting coral reef species has decreased by 29%, and the number of noncommercial angler trips taken regardless of target species has decreased by 52%. The most 

common mode of fishing utilized is from shore (76% of all angler trips in 2014), and in most 

years, fishing from shore also yields the most coral reef fish harvest in terms of weight (60% of 

all coral reef fish weight harvested in 2014). McCoy (2015) found that non-commercial catch for 

nearshore coral reef species is at least 9 times the reported commercial nearshore coral reef fish 

catch.

A study commissioned by NOAA’s NMFS found that an estimated 87,000 non-commercial

anglers generated $285 million in direct expenditures16 for the state of Hawaiʻi (Lovell, 

Steinbeck, and Hilger 2013) in 2011 (approximately $300.3 million in 2015 dollars). This 

analysis included residents of and visitors to Hawaiʻi. Residents spent $69 million on trip 

expenses: $3 million on for-hire trips, $21 million on private boat trips, and $45 million on shore 

trips. Non-residents spent $37 million on trip expenses: $37 million on for-hire trips, $102,000 

on private boat trips, and $69,000 on shore trips. It was also found that marine non-commercial

fishing in Hawaiʻi contributed 2,900 jobs to the state’s economy, generated $311 million in 

output (sales) (approximately $327.7 million in 2015 dollars), contributed $186 million to the 

state’s gross domestic product (approximately $196 million in 2015 dollars), and contributed

$119 million in income (approximately $125.4 million in 2015 dollars) in 2011.

Spearfishing, while not nearly as widespread as regular fishing, is also a popular extractive 

activity in the Hawaiian Islands, and in many cases, brings people into direct contact with coral 

reefs. A survey of spearfishermen conducted in Hawaiʻi in 2007 (Stoffle and Allen 2012) found 

that they fished an average of 45 days in the past year (median of 36), and that the majority of 

spearfishing trips were conducted from shore (55%) and from private boats (45%). This same 

survey also found that the most common reef species/fish targeted by spearfishermen are 

parrotfish, squirrelfish, tangs, snappers, jacks, flagtails, surgeonfish, chubs, filefish, goatfish, 

peacock grouper, eel, octopus, and lobster. Additionally, kayaking has become increasingly 

popular among spearfishermen because it is relatively inexpensive compared to owning a private 

fishing vessel, and it provides fishermen access to certain areas that were once difficult or 

impossible to get to by swimming. As is the case with other types of fishing in Hawaiʻi,

 

16 Includes fishing for all fish species.
46

spearfishing both establishes and maintains relationships among people, both formally (through 

clubs/organizations/competitions) and informally through general comradery and practicing 

traditional cultural methods of resource extraction. Further, Walsh (2013) found that the average 

annual commercial spear fishery value in West Hawaiʻi was $25,647 from 2007-2011, and an 

annual average of 16 commercial spear fishermen were active during these years.

Fishing also provides an important source of food for Hawaiʻi residents. In a recent survey of 

over 1,180 non-commercial fishermen across the state (Madge, Hospital, and Williams 2016), 

fishing for food was considered a primary or secondary motivation for fishing by 50% of 

respondents,

17 and the majority of fishermen shared their catch with family and/or friends. 

However, the same survey found that almost half (48%) of fishermen stated that they were 

fishing less now than in the past (only 16% stated that they fished more), primarily due to lack of 

free time and financial constraints. Sixty-five percent of these fishermen stated that nearshore 

coral reef fisheries were declining.

Allen and Bartlett (2008) found that 11% of households in Hawaiʻi fish, and this figure contrasts 

with what the NCRMP survey found.

18 There are, however, some key methodological 

differences between the NCRMP survey and Allen and Bartlett (2008). The survey conducted by 

Allen and Bartlett only asked households about their participation in fishing over the last 2 

months, while the NCRMP survey offers a choice “once a month or less” (which was selected by 

about 23% of households). Additionally, the NCRMP sampling frame includes cell and landline 

users, while Allen and Bartlett only included landline users. Additional analysis of the NCMRP 

sample found that cell phone users were statistically significantly more likely to participate in 

fishing when compared to landline users.

Snorkeling/Diving

Cesar and van Beukering (2004) found that the recreational divers in Hawaiʻi generated $14.3

million in direct expenditures (approximately $19 million in 2015 dollars), and that recreational 

snorkelers generated $52.6 million in direct expenditures (approximately $70 million in 2015 

dollars) in 2001. The total economic value added (direct and indirect) of recreational diving and 

snorkeling in Hawaiʻi was calculated to be $304.2 million in 2001 (approximately $407 million 

in 2015 dollars). This analysis included residents of and visitors to Hawaiʻi.

Tourism

Tourism is a very important and integral aspect of the Hawaiian economy. According to the

Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority (HTA), there were 8,308,114 tourist arrivals in Hawaiʻi in 2014 that

spent $14,821 million dollars (HTA 2015). Sixty-seven percent of these arrivals were from the 

 

17 This survey specifically targeted non-commercial fishermen in the state of Hawaii, as opposed to the NCRMP 

data collection process which targeted members of the general population, some of whom engage in fishing. 18 The NCRMP survey found that 41% of households fished.
47

US and Canada, with the second-largest source of visitors being Japan (18% of arrivals). Tourist 

visitation also provides a significant source of revenue to the state, with $420.9 million collected 

in Transient Accommodation Taxes, $3.5 million of which went to the State Department of Land 

and Natural Resources, which is responsible for marine resource management in the state (HTA 

2015). The tourism and recreation industry in Hawaiʻi produced a GDP of over $6.4 billion in 

2014 (a 2.4% inflation-adjusted increase from the previous year), while supporting 101,061

employees at 3,773 establishments (NOAA Digital Coast, ENOW).

Tourists enjoying marine wildlife viewing in Hawaiʻi (Photo Credit: Jarrod Loerzel)

Beach goers recreating at Three Tables Beach in Oʻahu (Photo Credit: Peter Edwards)
48

Results Section 3: Combination Primary and Secondary Data Indicators

The final section of results presents Governance as an example of a composite indicator that will 

be measured through a combination of primary NCRMP survey data as well as secondary data. 

Below, examples of both types of measures are featured. The measurements concerning the 

sources of coral reef-related information, the level of trust for each information source, and 

involvement in coral reef decision making come from NCRMP survey data, while all other facets 

of the governance composite indicator were derived from secondary data sources.

Governance 

Governance measures such as public trust, percent area of coral reefs under management or 

protection, level of community involvement in decision making/local reef governance, and the 

presence, longevity, and focus of MPAs and other marine managed areas were used to assess 

governance related to coral reefs and the marine environment for Hawaiʻi.

Sources of coral reef-related information and level of trust

Figure 23: Top sources of information on coral reefs (n = 2,240)

Fifty-eight percent of respondents indicated that the newspaper is their source for information 

pertaining to coral reefs (first, second, or third choice). Respondents’ top 3 sources for

information about coral reefs and the environment were newspaper, television, and the internet 

(Figure 23). The least used information sources were religious leaders and the state/county 

government. Respondents were then asked to rate their trustworthiness of each of the information 

sources that they indicated they used (Figure 24).

58%

45%

45%

30%

21%

17%

16%

10%

8%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Newspaper

TV

Internet

Friends and family

Radio

Federal government

Non-profit organizations

Community leaders

State/County Government

Religious leaders

Percentage of respondents who use each information source
49

Figure 24: Respondent level of trust in each coral reef information source

In terms of trust, 77% (newspaper), 80% (television), and 69% (internet) of respondents 

indicated that these sources are “very trustworthy” or “trustworthy” (Figure 24). According to 

respondents, the information sources that people trusted most (when they used them) were nonprofits (95%) and friends/family (93%), whereas the information sources found to be least 

trustworthy (“very untrustworthy” or “untrustworthy”) by people who use them were the 

state/county government (18%) and religious leaders (10%). 

Involvement in coral reef management decision making

Survey respondents in Hawaiʻi were asked how much they felt their communities were involved 

in protecting and managing coral reefs, with 51% stating that communities were at least 

“moderately involved,” and 17% stating that communities were “not involved at all.”

Respondents were also asked this question at the individual level, with 26% indicating that they 

themselves were at least “moderately involved” in decisions related to protecting and managing 

coral reefs, and 53% indicating that they were “not at all involved.” 

77%

80%

69%

93%

82%

87%

95%

83%

70%

70%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Newspaper (n = 1,252)

TV (n = 982)

Internet (n = 981)

Friends and family (n = 658)

Radio (n = 460)

Federal government (n = 370)

Non-profit organizations (n = 353)

Community leaders (n = 214)

State/County Government (n = 164)

Religious leaders (n = 10)

Percentage of respondents who trust each infromation source
50

An Example of Conservation Governance in Hawaiʻi (Photo Credit: Peter Edwards)
51

Defining “Community”

After respondents were asked about how much they felt their communities were involved in 

protecting and managing coral reefs, an additional open-ended follow up question asked 

respondents to “briefly define” their local community.19 Since the response to this question was 

open-ended, responses were post-coded to determine general categories of responses. 

Definitions of community varied widely, but fell into three broad categories, with some overlap: 

1. Responses that defined their “local community” geographically, socially, or through 

engagement in activities/livelihoods (38%)

2. Responses that described community involvement through community interests, 

characteristics, or involvement in activities to manage marine resources (76%)

3. Those that did not know/were unsure how to define their local community (12%)

It should be noted that 28% of respondents provided answers that were coded as both category 1 

and category 2. The diversity of definitions indicates that residents identify with a variety of 

types of communities, providing both opportunities and challenges for community engagement 

in coral reef management. 

Other governance indicators

Based on the NOAA MPA Inventory, 87.9% of all marine managed areas in Hawaiʻi had

management plans in place (2014) (Table 16). The oldest inventoried marine managed area was 

established in 1949, while others were established as recently as 2009. Of the inventoried marine 

managed areas, cultural heritage was a primary conservation focus of 4 MPAs, sustainable 

production was the primary focus of 39, and natural heritage was the primary focus of 15 MPAs. 

Additionally, commercial and recreational fishing were prohibited at 9 of the marine managed 

areas. The largest of these marine managed areas is the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National 

Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Although this is outside of the NCRMP 

socioeconomic region, it is managed jointly by the state of Hawaiʻi, NOAA, and the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Based on the NOAA MPA Inventory and NOAA (2007), investigation shows 

that 17% of the mapped coral reef ecosystems in and around the main Hawaiian Islands were 

under some form of management regime. It should be noted, however, that this analysis of 

known coral reef habitat falling within management boundaries is not intended to equate to an 

assessment of management adequacy or efficacy. Additional metrics would be required for this 

type of evaluation.

 

19 This question was removed after 421 respondents completed the survey due to difficulty amongst the respondents 

in answering this question, as well as the increased time burden that this question caused.
52

Table 146: Details of the Marine Managed Areas of Hawaiʻi20

Site Name Government 

Level

Management Plan Coral Area 

(sq.km)

Area (sq.km)

Waikiki-Diamond Head Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.84 0.97

Paiko Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary State Site-Specific Management Plan 0.00* 0.12

Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area Reserve State Site-Specific Management Plan 2.70 8.40

Pupukea Marine Life Conservation District State Community Agreement 0.73 1.03

Waikiki Marine Life Conservation District State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.28 0.32

Old Kona Airport Marine Life Conservation District State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.40 1.06

Molokini Shoal Marine Life Conservation District State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.17 0.36

Manele-Hulopoe Marine Life Conservation District State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.63 1.12

Lapakahi Marine Life Conservation District State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.50 0.54

Kealakekua Bay Marine Life Conservation District State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.46 1.24

Honolua-Mokuleia Bay Marine Life Conservation District State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.11 0.18

Puako Bay, Puako Reef Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

1.02 1.37

Hanauma Bay Marine Life Conservation District Partnership Site-Specific Management Plan 0.28 0.41

Waialea Bay Marine Life Conservation District State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.08 0.14

Moku-o-loe Island (Coconut Island) Marine Laboratory 

Refuge

State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.24 0.30

Hilo Bay, Wailoa River, Wailuku River Fishery Management 

Area

State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

1.62 6.19

 

20 This table reflects the most recent iteration of the NOAA MPA Inventory; however, it should be noted that the He‘eia National Estuarine Research Reserve 

was established in 2017 on the island of Oʻahu as NOAA’s 29th National Estuarine Research Reserve. This designation encompasses 5.60 square kilometers of 

upland, estuarine, and marine habitats within the He‘eia estuary and Kāne‘ohe Bay.
53

Site Name Government 

Level

Management Plan Coral Area 

(sq.km)

Area (sq.km)

Kona Coast Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

1.54 7.06

Waimea Bay, Waimea Recreational Pier Fishery Management 

Area

State No Management Plan 0.01

Kahului Harbor Fishery Management Area State No Management Plan 0.01 0.04

West Hawaiʻi Regional Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

24.91 227.52

Hanamaulu Bay, Ahukini Recreational Pier Fisherey

Management Area

State No Management Plan 0.37

Kailua Bay Fishery Management Area State No Management Plan 0.03 0.04

Port Allen Fisherey Management Area State No Management Plan 0.10

Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Partnership Site-Specific Management Plan 14.55 202.94

Nawiliwili Harbor Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.14

Ka Lae (South Point) Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

0.01 53.73

Leleʻiwi Point Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

2.95 118.35

Upolu Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

0.12 909.56

Mokumana - Umalei Point Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

161.58

Moku Ho'oniki, Molokaʻi - Lipoa Point., Maui Bottomfish 

Restricted Fishing Area

State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

51.44

Kaluapapa Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

0.00* 60.77

Penguin Bank Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

270.00

Makapu'u Point Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries

Management Plan

2.58 190.25

Manele Harbor Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.02

Ka'ena Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

85.36

Makahu'ena Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

51.08
54

Site Name Government 

Level

Management Plan Coral Area 

(sq.km)

Area (sq.km)

Niʻihau Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

40.97

Ka'ula Rock Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Area State Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

86.34

Kiholo Bay Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

1.74 2.66

Wai'opae Tidepools Marine Life Conservation District State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.14 0.20

Honolulu Harbor Fishery Management Area State No Management Plan 0.01 1.56

Ala Wai Canal Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.22

Waialua Bay (Haleiwa Harbor) Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.02 0.16

Pokai Bay Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.64 0.88

He'eia Kea Wharf Fishery Management Area State No Management Plan 0.01

Kapalama Canal Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.05

Kahekili Herbivore Fisheries Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.44 1.84

Keauhou Bay Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.08 0.08

Kawaihae Harbor Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.01

Kaunakakai Harbor Fishery Management Area State MPA Programmatic Management 

Plan

0.02 0.15

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument Partnership Site-Specific Management Plan 363,686.94

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary

Federal Site-Specific Management Plan 293.74 3,554.97

Kalaupapa National Historical Park Partnership Site-Specific Management Plan 3.17 43.29

Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Federal Site-Specific Management Plan 1.64 5.20

Puukohola Heiau National Historic Site Federal Site-Specific Management Plan 0.02 0.35

Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Federal Site-Specific Management Plan 0.00* 0.42

WestPac Bed Federal Non-MPA Programmatic Fisheries 

Management Plan

39.47
55

Site Name Government 

Level

Management Plan Coral Area 

(sq.km)

Area (sq.km)

Lobster Closed Areas Federal Non-MPA Programmatic Species 

Management Plan

N/A

358.41 369,879.87

Source: 2014 NOAA Marine Protected Areas Inventory
56

Results Section 4: Island Comparisons

This results section focuses on statistical comparisons across the Hawaiian Islands for which the 

NCRMP socioeconomic component team obtained representative samples: Hawaiʻi Island, 

Oʻahu, Maui, and Kauaʻi. A one-way ANOVA analysis was administered to compare the 

knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of residents across the four aforementioned islands. Poststratification sampling weights are not utilized in this analysis as it was necessary to obtain a 

statistically representative sample for each island individually. Each island is examined 

individually without weights, and is compared to each of the other individual islands. Table 18 

below illustrates these findings. For example, the cell “Hawaiʻi>Oʻahu***” pertaining to the 

activity index indicates that we are 99% confident that residents on Hawaiʻi Island, on average, 

participate in coral reef-related activates more frequently when compared to residents of Oʻahu. 

On average, residents of Oʻahu are less reliant upon coral reefs when compared to residents of 

Hawaiʻi, Maui, and Kauaiʻi. On average, fewer Oʻahu residents fish/gather marine resources 

when compared to residents of Hawaiʻi, Maui, and Kauaʻi. Residents of Hawaiʻi Island, on 

average, have a more positive perception of current marine resource condition when compared to 

residents of Oʻahu, Kauaʻi, and Maui. Oʻahu residents, on average, are less familiar with coral 

reef threats when compared to residents of Hawaiʻi Island, Maui, and Kauaʻi. Oʻahu residents, on 

average, are less likely to participate in pro-environmental behavior when compared to residents 

of Hawaiʻi Island, Maui, and Kauaʻi. 
57

Table 15: One-way ANOVA analysis across islands21

Variable Conclusion

Activity index22

Hawaiʻi>Oʻahu***

Maui>Oʻahu***

Kauaʻi>Oʻahu***

Maui>Hawaiʻi*

Kauaʻi>Hawaiʻi**

Fishing/Gathering marine resources

Hawaiʻi>Oʻahu***

Maui>Oʻahu***

Kauaʻi>Oʻahu***

Present condition index23

Hawaiʻi>Oʻahu**

Hawaiʻi>Maui***

Hawaiʻi>Kauaʻi**

Last 10 years condition index24 Oʻahu>Kauaʻi**

Hawaiʻi>Kauaʻi*

Believes the condition of marine resources will get worse 

over the next decade Kauaʻi>Oʻahu***

Agree that healthy coral reefs attract tourists to Hawaiʻi

Hawaiʻi>Oʻahu***

Maui>Oʻahu***

Kauaʻi>Oʻahu**

Threat Familiarity index25

Hawaiʻi>Oʻahu**

Maui>Oʻahu***

Kauaʻi>Oʻahu***

Believes the threat level to coral reefs is “large” or “extreme”

Maui>Oʻahu**

Kauaʻi>Oʻahu*

Is familiar with MPAs

Hawaiʻi>Oʻahu**

Maui>Oʻahu***

Maui>Kauaʻi***

21 * = statistically significantly different with 90% confidence; ** = statistically significantly different with 95% 

confidence; *** = statistically significantly different with 99% confidence

22 An additive index variable created by adding up the responses to all of the activity questions, and then scaling 0-

100. The index increases as activity participation frequency increases. Respondent had to answer all questions in the

index to receive an index value. Answers of “not sure” are considered missing. 23 An additive index variable was created by adding up the responses to all of the current marine resource condition

questions, and then scaling 0-100. The index increases as positive perception increases. Respondent had to answer

all questions in the index to receive an index value. Answers of “not sure” are considered missing. 24 An additive index variable was created by adding up the responses to all of the change in marine resource

condition questions, and then scaling 0-100. The index increases as positive perception increases. Respondent had to

answer all questions in the index to receive an index value. Answers of “not sure” are considered missing.

25 An additive index variable was created by adding up the responses to all of the threat familiarity questions, and

then scaling 0-100. The index increases as familiarity increases. Respondent had to answer all questions in the index

to receive an index value. Answers of “not sure” are considered missing.
58

Variable Conclusion

Management Support Index26

Oʻahu>Kauaʻi**

Maui>Kauaʻi***

Hawaiʻi>Kauaʻi*

Participates in pro-environmental behavior

Hawaiʻi>Oʻahu*

Maui>Oʻahu***

Kauaʻi>Oʻahu***

Believes community is at least moderately involved in 

protecting and managing coral reefs Maui>Oʻahu**

Indicates that they themselves are at least moderately 

involved in protecting and managing coral reefs

Maui>Oʻahu***

Kauaʻi>Oʻahu**

Reef Reliance Index27

Hawaiʻi>Oʻahu***

Maui>Oʻahu***

Kauaʻi>Oʻahu***

 

26 An additive index variable was created by adding up the responses to all of the management support questions, 

and then scaling 0-100. The index increases as management support increases. Respondent had to answer all 

questions in the index to receive an index value. Answers of “not sure” are considered missing. 27 This index includes the coral reef activity questions of “fishing” and “gathering marine resources;” the fishing 

reason questions of “to feed myself/my family,” “to sell,” and “for special occasions/cultural events;” and the 

seafood source question. Those who "never" fish or gather are assigned 1s ("never") for the fishing reason questions. 

For seafood source, the choice of interest was “caught myself.” In order to scale the “caught myself” seafood source 

response in the same way as the other questions in the index (a 1-4 scale), a 1 was assigned to those who do not 

catch seafood themselves, a 2 was assigned to those who indicated catching seafood themselves was their second 

choice source, a 3 was assigned to those who indicated catching seafood themselves was their first choice source, 

and a 4 was assigned to those who indicated that catching seafood themselves was their only source. An additive 

index was then created and scaled 0-100; increasing as reliance upon coral reefs increases. Respondent had to 

answer all questions in the index to get an index value. Answers of “not sure” are considered missing.
59

Discussion

While the NCRMP data collection effort collects data from a range of sources, our discussion 

will focus primarily on the new data collected via the Hawaiʻi resident survey. Based on the 

survey findings, a few general conclusions about the population of Hawaiʻi and their interactions

with coral reefs can be made. These can be considered preliminary findings, and more detailed 

analyses of these data are planned for the future. We conclude this section by proposing 

directions for future research. 

With respect to participation in reef activities, Hawaiʻi residents participate in a variety of 

purely recreational coral reef related activities, with swimming and beach recreation being the 

most frequent. Residents on Maui and Kauaʻi participated more frequently in coral reef related 

recreational activities when compared to residents of the other Hawaiian Islands (Table 18).

These activity participation rates do not take the participation rates of tourists into account. 

Our survey found that over 45% of households stated that they engaged in fishing and/or 

gathering (41% participate in fishing, 27% participate in gathering, 45% participate in one of 

either fishing or gathering). The survey found that 66% of households consumed fish/seafood 

once a week or more, and that most fishers (82%) did not sell the fish they catch; however, it is 

uncertain what proportion of fishing targeted coral reef species, and what proportion of fish 

protein consumed comes from coral reef versus non-coral reef fish species, as these distinctions

were not specified in the survey. The need for this clarification has been noted, and as a result, 

the survey question will be adjusted in future iterations of the NCRMP survey. Additionally, 

seafood consumed by Hawaiʻi residents is predominantly purchased in supermarkets, grocery 

stores, and restaurants.

Survey respondents were asked about their perceptions of the health of Hawaiʻi’s coral reef 

resources. The findings showed that residents had varying perceptions of marine resource

conditions. The majority found ocean water quality and the diversity of fish to be in good 

condition, while perceptions are less consistent regarding the amount of coral and fish 

size/diversity. Residents had mixed perceptions regarding the change in marine resources over 

time, with most residents perceiving resource conditions to be either the same or worse than 10 

years ago, and 18% or less perceiving resource conditions to be improving over time. When 

examining the effect of tenure (i.e. how long a resident has lived in the jurisdiction), additional 

analysis found that residents who have lived in Hawaiʻi for their entire lives had a more negative 

perception concerning the current condition of marine resources, and were also more likely to 

perceive that the change in the condition of marine resources had worsened over the last decade

(Table E1). Some differences in perceptions concerning marine resource condition were 

identified between respondents based on island of residence as well. For instance, residents on

Hawaiʻi Island tended to have a more positive perception of current marine resource conditions

when compared to residents of Oʻahu, Maui, and Kauaʻi (Table 18). Perceptions of coral reef 

health may correlate to differing resource quality within and across different islands, which 
60

could, in part, explain the lack of consensus concerning the condition of marine resources. It also 

should be noted that perceptions of marine resource condition may vary within different parts of 

each of these islands (rural, urban, user non-user etc.).

Regarding the public’s awareness and knowledge of coral reef functions and threats, this 

study found that the majority of the population are familiar with the threats facing coral reefs

asked about in the survey (with the exception of ocean acidification). Over 60% of the 

respondents also believed that the condition of coral reef resources would get worse in the next 

10 years, and over 60% believed that the threats to coral reefs are at least “large” or “extreme.”

This suggests a lack of confidence amongst Hawaiʻi residents that current threats to coral reefs 

are being (or can be) effectively addressed by current management or mitigation efforts.

The study found that the public’s attitudes towards coral reef management strategies and 

enforcement were largely positive. Residents expressed support for most of the potential marine 

management measures asked about in the survey, some of which are in use or proposed in

various parts of Hawaiʻi. These results concerning support for coral reef resource management 

are one of the main highlights of this survey. The data indicate that a wide majority of residents 

support coral reef management in a general sense. In particular, 90% of the respondents 

supported better treatment of wastewater, and 80% supported designating marine managed areas. 

The least supported management option was “establishment of a non-commercial fishing 

license” (58% support). Additional analysis found that respondents who were more reliant on 

marine resources (for food, sustenance, economics, etc.) were generally less supportive of marine 

management policies and regulations (Table E2); although, for the most part these users were 

still supportive of the management options presented in the survey. Given the substantial range 

of management options presented in the survey and the potential for these options to be applied 

in various combinations, this question was developed to provide a range of important feedback 

for resource managers. The responses allowed for evaluation of both support for each option, as 

well as the reaction to the particular words used to describe the management strategy. For 

example, although some marine protected areas may limit recreational use, respondents were 

extremely favorable when considering the designation of marine managed areas. However, when 

asked about limited recreational use alone, respondents’ support for such regulations decreased. 

With respect to knowledge of coral reef rules and regulations in Hawaiʻi, 51% of respondents 

indicated that they were familiar with MPAs. It also should be noted that not all regulations 

concerning coral reefs are related to MPAs. We also attempted to track public participation and 

attitudes with respect to some measures of the governance of coral reefs and associated

resources. It was found that 87.9% of all marine managed areas in Hawaiʻi had management 

plans in place, and 17% of all coral reef habitat was under some form of management. 

Respondents indicated a moderate level of community involvement in coral reef decision 

making, and a high level of involvement in pro-environmental behavior aimed at improving the 

health of the marine environment and coral reefs (81% of survey respondents indicated that they 

participate in pro-environmental behavior). The survey also found that Hawaiʻi residents 
61

infrequently relied on the federal and local government as top information sources regarding 

coral reef topics; however, those who did rely on the federal and local government for 

information considered them to be trustworthy sources. The internet, while more widely used, 

and considered a top information source by 45% of the population, wasn’t considered as 

trustworthy as other coral reef information sources.

In terms of human population composition and trends near coral reefs, the population of 

Hawaiʻi has increased by 11% from 2006-2015, and each Hawaiian county has experienced 

population growth and increased population density during this period. The largest population 

center in Hawaiʻi, the city of Honolulu, is in close proximity to coral reefs, which brings even 

more humans into contact with the coral reef ecosystem. This increases the risk for 

anthropogenic stressors, but also provides ample ecosystem services to Hawaiʻi residents. As for 

community well-being, real GDP in Hawaiʻi increased by 13% from 2000-2015, and real 

median household income increased for each Hawaiian county from 2000-2010. However, 

Hawaiʻi, Honolulu, and Kauaʻi Counties all experienced slight increases in poverty rate from 

2000-2010. Household reliance on public assistance decreased in all Hawaiian counties from 

2000-2010, and 93% of the civilian non-institutionalized population in Hawaiʻi had health 

insurance coverage in the year 2010. Educational attainment has been on the rise from 2000-

2010, both in terms of high school and college completion. When tracking physical 

infrastructure, it was found that 4.1% of the area in the main Hawaiian Islands is covered in 

impervious surfaces. With regards to pollution, the 2014 EPA Hawaiʻi water quality assessment 

report found that 67% of coastal shoreline waters are impaired, and the EPA national emissions 

inventory found that air emissions increased by 29% from 2011 to 2014. Most Hawaiʻi residents

(96%) are served by the public water supply, less than 1% of households lacked access to 

complete plumbing facilities, and there were 14 landfills in Hawaiʻi as of 2016. When examining 

public access to coastal resources, it was found that Hawaiʻi has 250 public beach parks, an 

estimated 1,600 surfing sites, and 67 boating facilities.

Hawaiʻi residents participate in several economic activities related to reefs, including fishing, 

diving, snorkeling, and marine construction. NOAA OCM found that 9.7% of Hawaiian GDP 

($7.4 billion) is related to the ocean economy. Maui County is especially dependent upon the 

ocean economy, with 22% of their county GDP being derived from ocean economy sectors. The 

weight and value of coral reef fish species commercially harvested in Hawaiʻi decreased from 

2004-2014, and the weight of coral reef fish species harvested through non-commercial means 

has also decreased over this time period as well. The tourism and recreation industry in Hawaiʻi 

is highly reliant upon coral reefs and produced a GDP of over $6.4 billion in 2014.

Future approaches and research ideas

There were a few lessons learned from this first NCRMP socioeconomic data collection in 

Hawaiʻi. As similar surveys are implemented across other US coral reef jurisdictions, the 

NCRMP team will be making adjustments to the data collection effort to improve upon the type 
62

of information generated. These findings can be considered as a starting point to develop more 

detailed research questions for future work. For example, there is a need to fine-tune the survey 

question on fish consumption and fishing activity to make it more specific to coral reef related 

fish and invertebrate species, as well as a need to distinguish between locally caught and 

imported fish. There is also a need to understand key differences across sections of individual 

islands as they pertain to knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of coral reefs and coral reef 

management. Other questions may be modified once all US coral reef jurisdictions have been 

surveyed, with the aim of maintaining comparability of questions across the different 

jurisdictions, and ensuring that included questions can provide information relevant to the local 

context and management needs in Hawaiʻi. Additionally, when collecting secondary data 

regarding fisheries landings and participation in fishing, the team plans to further disaggregate 

coral reef fish species from the total figures that include wider pelagic and longline species.

Another future research direction is to conduct analyses that explore relationships between 

different socioeconomic indicators, as well as comparisons between sub-populations as defined 

by the sampled respondents. These may include demographic categories such as age, gender, or 

familiarity with coral reefs, among others. For example, our results showed that there was a 

difference in the perceptions of those who fish/gather versus those who do not in relation to their 

attitudes towards most coral reef management measures (fishermen/gatherers tended to have 

lesser levels of agreement with the coral reef management strategies presented in the survey; 

Table E3). The study also found that all things held equal, fishing and gathering were less 

common on Oʻahu (in terms of the proportion of the island population that participates) when 

compared to the other islands (Table E4), however if proportions are extrapolated to each 

island’s population, Oʻahu is home to more fisher/gatherers than any other Hawaiian island.

Additional improvements to the survey instrument might also include better distinguishing the 

sources of information on coral reefs and level of trustworthiness. This would provide 

information that could be incorporated into specific public outreach and education programs for 

current and future management measures.

The collection of secondary data, including economic impacts of tourism and fishing, as well as 

data contributing to the development of some of the community well-being composite indicators, 

will continue over time. As updated data sets are produced by relevant agencies, these will be 

collected, synthesized, and housed within a centralized database, and will then be used to track 

changes over time. These data may be incorporated into composite indicators that combine or 

compare biophysical parameters (e.g., fish biomass) with commercial landings data and public 

perceptions of general reef health. It is notable that population growth and net increases in 

population density in Hawaiʻi may have a potential impact on coral reef resources. Net growth 

could result in increased demand for coral reef ecosystem services including recreation and 

provisioning (food, products). Growth could also result in increases in impervious surfaces due 

to general urbanization as well as higher volumes of solid and sewage waste production. This, in 

turn, can add more stress to coral reef ecosystems in Hawaiʻi.
63

The NCRMP socioeconomic data collection builds upon and supplements the considerable social 

science research that has been conducted in Hawaiʻi to date. Integrating NCRMP data with these 

studies, or comparing and contrasting findings, has the potential to provide a more complete 

understanding of human interactions with coral reef resources in the territory. For example, 

Brander and van Beukering (2013) found that Hawaiʻi’s coral reefs provide an estimated $1.747

billion per year in ecosystem service benefits to humans in year 2007 dollars (includes

recreation/tourism, amenity, research, fishery, and non-use value). The socioeconomic 

monitoring data collected through NCRMP provides further evidence of the contribution of

Hawaiʻi’s coral reefs to the economic stability of the communities within the state. 

In the near future, NCRMP research efforts plan to integrate social and biophysical data streams 

to obtain a more in-depth understanding of social-ecological relationships. For instance, we plan 

to compare resident perceptions of coral reef resource condition to biological indicators at the 

island level, and within and across jurisdictions. Finally, ongoing analyses of the individual 

metrics presented here will move us toward reporting the survey and secondary data collection 

results for a variety of composite indicators such as governance and perceived resource 

condition. These composite indicators will aid in comparisons across jurisdictions, where 

individual metrics may not be the same. Further, the use of composite indicators will support 

communication of complex data in a way that facilitates resource management decision making. 
64

Coral Reefs in Hawaiʻi (Photo credit: NOAA, Kevin Lino) 
65

References

Allen, S. and Bartlett, N. 2008. “Hawaii Marine Recreational Fisheries Survey: How Analysis of 

Raw Data Can Benefit Regional Fisheries Management and How Catch Estimates are 

Developed; An Example Using 2003 Data.” NOAA NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries 

Science Center. Honolulu, HI. Administrative Report H-08-04. Pp. 33 + Appendices.

Brander, L., and P. van Beukering. 2013. “The Total Economic Value of U.S. Coral Reefs: A 

Review of the Literature.” NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. Silver Spring, MD. 

Pp. 28.

Brewer, T.D., J.E. Cinner, A. Green, and R.L. Pressey. 2013. “Effects of human population 

density and proximity to markets on coral reef fishes vulnerable to extinction by fishing.” 

Conservation Biology 27(3): 443-452.

Butler, C., and W. Oluoch-Kosura. 2006. "Linking Future Ecosystem Services and Future 

Human Well-Being." Ecology & Society 11(1): 1-16.

Cesar, H. and P. van Beukering. 2004. “Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawaiʻi.” 

Pacific Science. 58(2): 231-242.

Costanza, R., B. Fisher, S. Ali, C. Beer, L. Bond, R. Boumans, N.L. Danigelis, J. Dickinson, C. 

Elliot, J. Farley, D.E. Gayer, L.M. Glenn, T. Hudspeth, D. Mahoney, L. McCahil, B.

McIntosh, B. Reed, S. A T. Rizui, D.M. Rizzo, T. Simpatico and R. Snapp. 2007. 

“Quality of Life: An Approach Integrating Opportunities, Human Needs, and Subjective 

Well-Being.” Ecological Economics 61: 267-76.

Costanza, R. R. D’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, 

R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. “The Value 

of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital." Nature 387: 253-260.

DeMartini, E.E. and A.M. Friedlander. 2004. “Spatial patterns of endemism in shallow water 

reef fish populations of the Northwestern Hawaiian Island.” Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 271: 

281-296.

Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2017. “DOBOR Recreational Boating 

Facilities.” Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation. URL: 

http://dlnr.Hawaiʻi.gov/dobor/dobor-facilities/. Accessed 5-20-2017.

Dillard, M. K., T. L. Goedeke, S. Lovelace, and A. Orthmeyer. 2013. "Monitoring Well-being 

and Changing Environmental Conditions in Coastal Communities: Development of an 

Assessment Method." NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 174. Silver Spring, 

MD. Pp. 176.
66

Dillman, Don A. 1978. “Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.” New York: 

Wiley-Interscience.

Dillman, Don A, J.D. Smyth, and L.M. Christian. 2009. “Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: 

The Tailored Design Method,” (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Doherty, P.J. and J.H. Carleton. 1997. “The Distribution and Abundance of Pelagic Juvenile Fish 

Near Grub Reef, Central Great Barrier Reef. In: H.A. Lessios and I.G. Macintyre (eds.).

Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium Vol. 2. Smithsonian Tropical 

Research Institute, Panama. 1155-1160.

Doyal, L. and I. Gough. 1991. “A Theory of Human Need.” London, England: Palgrave 

Macmillan.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. “Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) – 2012 

Report and Data.” Hawaiʻi State Fact Sheet. 

URL: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/cwns_fs-hi.pdf. 

Accessed 6-24-16.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. “National and State Lists of Landfills and Energy 

Projects.” Landfill Methane Outreach Program; Landfill-level data only (all landfills) –

updated March 2016. URL: https://www3.epa.gov/lmop/projects-candidates/. Accessed 

6-27-17.

Ferrario, F., M. Beck, C. Storlazzi, F. Micheli, C. Shepard, and L. Airoldi. 2013. “The 

Effectiveness of Coral Reefs for Coastal Hazard Risk Reduction and Adaptation.” Nature 

Communications 5:3784. Pp. 9. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4794.

Fletcher, C., C. Robinson, C. Conger, M. Engels, E. Feirstein, N. Frazer, C. Glenn, R. Grigg, E. 

Grossman, J. Harney, E. Isoun, C. Murray-Wallace, J. Rooney, K. Rubin, C. Sherman, 

and S. Vitousek. 2008. “Geology of Hawaiʻi Reefs.” In: B.M. Riegl and R.E. Dodge 

(eds.) “Coral Reefs of the USA.” Springer Science and Business Media B.V. Pp. 435-87.

Friedlander, A., and E. DeMartini. 2002. “Contrasts in Density, Size, and Biomass of Reef 

Fishes Between the Northwestern and the Main Hawaiian Islands: The Effects of Fishing 

Down Apex Predators.” Marine Ecology Progress Series. 230: 253-264.

Friedlander, A., G. Aeby, R. Brainard, E. Brown, K. Chaston, A. Clark, P. McGowan, T. 

Montgomery, W. Walsh, I. Williams, and W. Wiltse. 2008. “The State of Coral Reef 

Ecosystems of the Main Hawaiian Islands". Pp. 219-61, edited by Department of 

Commerce: NOAA NOS NCCOS. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA/NCCOS Center for 

Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s Biogeography Team.
67

Giambelluca, T.W., X. Shuai, M.L. Barnes, R.J. Alliss, R.J. Longman, T. Miura, Q. Chen, A.G. 

Frazier, R.G. Mudd, L. Cuo, and A.D. Businger. 2014. “Evapotranspiration of Hawaiʻi:

Final report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers”—Honolulu District, and the 

Commission on Water Resource Management, State of Hawaiʻi.

URL: http://climate.geography.Hawaiʻi.edu/. Accessed 6-20-16.

Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority. 2015. “2015 Annual Report to the Hawaiʻi State Legislature.” 

Honolulu, HI. Pp. 56.

Jepson, M., and L. Colburn. 2013. “Development of Social Indicators of Fishing Community 

Vulnerability and Resilience in the U.S. Southeast and Northeast Regions.” U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-129. Pp. 64.

Jokiel, P.T. 1987. “Ecology, biogeography and evolution of corals in Hawaiʻi.” Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution. 2(7): 179-182.

Kay, E.A. and S.R. Palumbi. 1987. “Endemism and evolution in Hawaiian marine invertebrates.”

Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2(7): 183-186.

Kottek, M., J. Grieser, C. Beck, B. Rudolf, and F. Rubel, 2006: “World Map of Köppen-Geiger 

Climate Classification updated.” Meteorologische Zeitschrift. 15(3): 259-263.

Lewis, K. and S. Burd-Sharps. 2014. “American Human Development Report: The Measure of 

America 2013–2014.” Measure of American of the Social Science Research Council. Pp. 

59.

Loper, C., A. Levine, J. Agar, M. Hamnett, V. R. Leeworthy, M. Valdez-Pizzini, and K. Wallmo. 

2010. "NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Social Science Strategy: 2010-2015."

Lovelace, S., and M. Dillard. 2012. "Developing Social and Economic Indicators for Monitoring 

the US Coral Reef Jurisdictions: report from a scientific workshop to support the 

National Coral Reef Monitoring Program." Charleston, SC: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal 

Ocean Science, Hollings Marine Laboratory. 

Lovell, S., S. Steinbeck, and J. Hilger. 2013. “The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler 

Expenditures in the United States, 2011.” U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS-F/SPO-134. Pp. 188.

Macdonald, G., A. Abbott, and F. Peterson. 1983. “Volcanoes in the Sea: The Geology of 

Hawaiʻi.” 2nd Edition. University of Hawaiʻi Press; Honolulu, HI. Pp. 523.

Madge, L., J. Hospital, and E.T. Williams. 2016. “Attitudes and Preferences of Hawaii Noncommercial Fishermen: Report from the 2015 Hawaii Saltwater Recreational Fishing 
68

Survey.” U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-58. Pp.

36 + Appendices. doi:10.7289/V5/TMPIFSC-58.

Maragos, J.E., D.C. Potts, G.S. Aeby, D. Gulko, J.C. Kenyon, D. Siciliano, and D. 

VanRavenswaay. 2004. “2000-2002 Rapid Ecological Assessments of corals (Anthozoa) 

on shallow reefs of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.” Part 1: Species and Distribution.

Pacific Science Journal. 58(2): 211-230.

McCoy, K. 2015. “Estimating Nearshore Fisheries Catch for the Main Hawaiian Islands.” 

University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Biology.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef Conservation Program

(CRCP). 2010. “Priorities for Coral Reef Management in the Hawaiian Archipelago: 

2010-2020.” Silver Spring, MD: NOAA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef Conservation Program

(CRCP). 2014. "National Coral Reef Monitoring Plan." Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Coral 

Reef Conservation Program.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef Information System 

(CoRIS). 2007. “Shallow-water Benthic Habitats of the Main Hawaiian Islands.” URL: 

https://products.coastalscience.noaa.gov/collections/benthic/e97hawaii/data2007.aspx. 

Accessed: 12-21-17.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management

(OCM). 2013. “Economics: National Ocean Watch (ENOW) Sectors and Industries and 

the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).” Available at: 

https://coast.noaa.gov/ digitalcoast/sites/default/files/uploaded/files/NAICS-Table_1.pdf. 

Accessed 5-18-2016.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Response and Restoration 

(OR&R). 2001. "Sensitivity of Coastal Environments and Wildlife to Spilled Oil: 

Hawaiʻi: ESIP". Available at: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps-and-spatialdata/download-esi-maps-and-gis-data.html.

Randall, J.E. 1998. “Zoogeography of shore fishes of the Indo-Pacific region.” Zoological

Studies. 37: 227–268.

Roff, G., C. Doropoulos, A. Rogers, Y. Bozec, N.C. Krueck, E. Aurellado, M. Priest, C. Birrell, 

and P. Mumby. 2016. “The Ecological Role of Sharks on Coral Reefs.” Trends in 

Ecology & Evolution. 31(5): 395-407.

Schirnding, Y. 2002. “Health in Sustainable Development Planning: The Role of Indicators.” 

World Health Organization; Geneva. WHO/HDE/HID/02.11.
69

State of Hawaiʻi Office of Planning. 2006. “Section 309 Enhancement Area Grant Program FY 

2006-2010: Assessment and Strategy.” Coastal Zone Management Program Publication 

Pursuant to NOAA Award No. NA05NOS4191060.

State of Hawaiʻi Department of Health. 2017. “Wastewater.” Available at: 

http://health.hawaii.gov/cwb/clean-water-branch-home-page/polluted-runoff-controlprogram/prc-hawaiis-implementation-plan/wastewater/.

Stoffle, B. W., and S. D. Allen. 2012. “The sociocultural importance of spearfishing in Hawai`i.”

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-31. Pp. 

38.

Thorrold, S. and D. Williams. 1996. “Meso-Scale Distribution Patterns of Larval and Pelagic 

Juvenile Fishes in the Central Great Barrier Reef Lagoon.” Marine Ecology Press Series. 

145: 17-31.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2016. "Healthy Environment, Healthy 

People." in Thematic Report of the Second session of the United Nations Environment 

Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya.

United States Census Bureau. 2010. "Decennial Census of Population and Housing." in 

Summary File 2. Washington, DC.

United States Census Bureau. 2015. "County Total Population Estimates and Components of 

Population Change." In Population and Housing Unit Estimates. Washington, DC.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. 1995. "Paper Work Reduction Act 

(PRA) of 1995."

United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2010. “The 2010 Poverty Guidelines 

for Hawaiʻi.” Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. 

URL: https://aspe.hhs.gov/2010-hhs-poverty-guidelines. Accessed 6-17-16.

Vincent, I.V., C.M. Hincksman, I.R. Tibbetts, and A. Harris. 2011. “Biomass and Abundance of 

Herbivorous Fishes on Coral Reefs off Andavadoaka, Western Madagascar.” Western 

Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science. 10(1): 83-99.

Walsh, W. 2013. “Background Paper on SCUBA Spearfishing.” Hawaiʻi Division of Aquatic 

Resources. Honolulu, HI. Pp. 43.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 2016. “Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the

Hawaii Archipelago.” Honolulu, HI. Pp. 105 + Appendices.

Williams, I.D., W.J. Walsh, R.E. Schroeder, A.M. Friedlander, B.L. Richards, and K.A. 

Stamoulis. 2008. “Assessing the Importance of Fishing Impacts on Hawaiian Coral Reef 
70

Fish Assemblages Along Regional-Scale Human Population Gradients.” Environmental 

Conversation. 35(3): 261-272.
71

Appendix A: National Coral Reef Monitoring Program

Understanding Socioeconomic Connections

The Socioeconomic Component of the National Coral Reef Monitoring Plan (NCRMP) gathers 

and monitors a collection of socioeconomic variables, including demographics in coral reef 

areas, human use of coral reef resources, as well as knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of 

coral reefs and coral reef management. The overall goal of the socioeconomic monitoring 

component is to track relevant information regarding each jurisdiction's population, social and 

economic structure, the impacts of society on coral reefs, and the impacts of coral management 

on communities. NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) will use the information for 

research and to improve the results of programs designed to protect coral reefs.

The main purpose of the Socioeconomic Component of NCRMP is to answer the following 

questions: What is the status of human knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions regarding coral 

reefs? And, how are human uses of, interactions with, and coral dependence on coral reefs 

changing over time?

More details can be found here: http://www.coris.noaa.gov/monitoring/socioeconomic.html
72

Appendix B: The NCRMP Survey Instrument

OMB SUBMISSION

NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program

National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP)

Resident Coral Reef Survey

OMB Control Number 0648-0646

**Hawaiʻi Survey**

Survey conducted in (circle one): English

Introduction: [greeting specific to jurisdiction]

Hello, my name is [interviewer name]. I’m calling from [CONTRACT COMPANY] on behalf of 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Coral Reef 

Monitoring Program. We are interested in obtaining your opinions on important issues related to 

coral reefs in Hawaiʻi. You were selected because you live in a coastal area near coral reefs. 

This survey is being conducted in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. Your participation is voluntary, your answers are confidential and you can stop 

the interview at any time. The interview is expected to take less than 20 minutes. If you have 

questions or would like to know more about the survey I will provide you with contact 

information. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall 

any person be subjected to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information 

subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control number for this 

survey is 0648-0646

The 20 minute estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 

collection of information. 

Please send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other suggestions for reducing 

this burden to Peter Edwards, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, National Ocean 

Service, Coral Reef Conservation Program, (1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 

20910, USA). 

1. Are you at least 18 years of age?

IF “YES” CONTINUE TO SCREENING QUESTION 2. IF “NO”, END SURVEY.

2. Do you live in Hawaiʻi at least 3 months of the year?

IF “YES” CONTINUE WITH QUESTION #1 OF THE SURVEY.
73

Now that we have established that you are qualified, we will continue with the survey. 

Remember that you can stop at any time. 

PARTICIPATION IN REEF ACTIVITIES

1. How often do you usually participate in each of the following activities? Never Once a month or less

2-3 times a 

month

4 times a 

month or 

more

No Response

Swimming/wading

Snorkeling

Diving (SCUBA or free diving)

Waterside/ beach camping

Beach recreation (land based beach 

sports, picnics)

Boating

Wave riding (surfing, stand up paddle 

boarding, body boarding)

Canoeing/kayaking

Fishing (for finfish)

Gathering of marine resources (nonfinfish such as lobsters, octopus, opihi, 

seaweed)

SKIP PATTERN-- If respondent answers ‘never’ to BOTH fishing AND gathering of 

marine resources, then skip to #3:

CORAL REEF RELIANCE / CULTURAL IMPORTANCE OF REEFS

2. How often do you fish or harvest marine resources for each of the following reasons? Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never No Response

To feed myself and my family/ household 

To sell [INTERVIEWER CAN PROMPT: “or for 

work” to include fishing/harvesting as part of 

employment]
74

Frequently 

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

No 

Response

To give to extended family members and/or 

friends

For fun

For special occasions and cultural 

purposes/events

3. How often does your family eat fish/seafood? 

a. Every day

b. A few times a week 

c. About once a week

d. 1-3 times a month

e. Less than once a month

f. Never

4. What are the two main sources of the fish and seafood that you and your family eats? 

a. Purchased by myself or someone in my household at a store or restaurant

b. Purchased by myself or someone in my household at a market or roadside 

vendor

c. Caught by myself or someone in my household

d. Caught by extended family members

e. Caught by friends or neighbors

f. Other, please specify ______________________

g. Not Sure

h. Refused

PERCEIVED RESOURCE CONDITION

5. In your opinion, how are Hawaiʻi’s marine resources currently doing? Please rank from 

very bad to very good. 

Very BadBadNeither Bad nor G dGoodVery GoodNot sure

Ocean Water Quality (clean and clear)

Amount of Coral 

Number of Fish

Diversity of fish
75

Very BadBadNeither Bad nor G dGoodVery GoodNot sure

Size of fish

6. How would you say the condition of each of the following has changed over the last 10 

years: from 1=it has gotten a lot worse to 5=it has gotten a lot better. A lot Worse Somewhat Worse No Change Somewhat Better

A lot Better

Not Sure

Ocean Water Quality (clean and clear)

Amount of Coral 

Number of Fish 

Diversity of fish

Size of fish

7. In the next 10 years, do you think the condition of the marine resources in Hawaiʻi will 

get worse, stay the same or improve? 

a. Get worse 

b. Stay the same

c. Improve

d. Not sure

AWARENESS AND KNOWLEDGE OF CORAL REEFS 

8. Please say whether you disagree or agree with each of the following statements. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly 

Agree

Not Sure

Coral reefs protect the Hawaiʻi from erosion and 

natural disasters.

Coral reefs are only important to fishermen, 

divers and snorkelers.

Healthy coral reefs attract tourists to Hawaiʻi.
76

Strongly 

DisagreeDisagree

Neither

Agree

Strongly 

Agree

Not Sure

Coral reefs are important to Hawaiian culture.

9. How familiar are you with each of the following potential threats facing the coral reefs in

Hawaiʻi? 

10. Do you believe that the threats to coral reefs in Hawaiʻi are: 

a. Extreme

b. Large

c. Moderate

d. Minimal

e. None

f. Not sure

AWARENESS OF CORAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

11. A Marine Managed Area is an area of the ocean where human activity is typically 

restricted to protect living, non-living, cultural, and/or historic resources. Examples in Very Unfamiliar Unfamiliar Neither Familiar nor Unfamiliar Familiar Very Familiar Not sure

Climate change

Coral bleaching

Hurricanes and other natural 

disasters

Pollution (stormwater, wastewater, 

chemical runoff and trash/littering)

Increased coastal/urban development

Invasive species

Too much fishing and gathering

Damage from ships and boats 

Impacts from recreational activity 

(examples include trampling of reefs, 

anchor damage)

Ocean acidification
77

Hawaiʻi include marine life conservation districts, fisheries management areas, and 

community based subsistence fishing areas. How familiar are you with Marine Managed 

Areas?

a. Very Unfamiliar

b. Unfamiliar

c. Neither Unfamiliar nor Familiar

d. Familiar

e. Very Familiar

f. Not sure 

ATTITUDES TOWARDS CORAL REEF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND 

ENFORCEMENT

12. The following are common strategies used to manage the marine environment. We are 

interested in your opinion about the use of these strategies for the protection of coral 

reefs in Hawaiʻi. Please indicate how much you disagree or agree with each of the 

following: 

Strongly 

DisagreeDisagree

Neither Agree 

nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly 

Agree

Not Sure

Better regulation of land use practices to 

prevent sediment from going to sea 

Catch limits per person for certain fish 

species (size and amount)

Seasonal openings/closures of fisheries

Gear restrictions for fishing

Better treatment of wastewater

Improved law enforcement for existing 

rules/regulations

Community participation in marine 

management

Ocean zoning 

Designating marine managed areas

Limited use for recreational activities 

(examples include diving, snorkeling, 

boating)

No-take zones

Establishment of a non-commercial fishing 

license
78

PARTICIPATION IN BEHAVIORS THAT MAY IMPROVE CORAL CONDITION

13. How often do you participate in any activity to protect the environment (for example, 

beach clean ups, volunteering with an environmental group, recycling)? 

a. Not At All

b. Once a year or Less

c. Several times a year

d. At least once a month

e. Several Times a Month or more

f. Not Sure

14. Which of the following would you consider to be your top 3 sources of information about 

coral reefs and the environment in Hawaiʻi? 

Interviewer checks the top 3 sources of information in box below.

15. To what degree do you trust each of your top rated sources of information to provide 

you the most accurate information on coral reefs and coral reef related topics in

Hawaiʻi? 

Respondent rates only the top 3 sources of information in box below.

Top 3 Sources 

Very untrustworthy

Untrustworthy

Neither 

Trustworthy nor 

Untrustworthy

Trustworthy

Very Trustworthy

Not sure

Newspapers, other print publications 

Radio

TV 

Internet

Friends and family 

Community leaders

Religious leaders

Government (jurisdictional)

Federal government agencies (NOAA, 

EPA)

Non-profit organizations 

Other 
79

16. How involved is your local community in protecting and managing coral reefs? 

a. Not at all involved

b. Somewhat involved

c. Moderately involved

d. Involved

e. Very involved

f. Not sure

17. In thinking about the previous question, how would you briefly define “your local 

community”? [open ended] ___________________

18. How involved are you in making decisions related to the management of coral reefs in

Hawaiʻi? 

a. Not at all involved

b. Slightly involved

c. Moderately involved

d. Involved

e. Very involved

f. Not sure

DEMOGRAPHICS 

19. Are you male or female? 

a. Male

b. Female

20. What is your year of birth? __________________ 

21. How long have you lived in Hawaiʻi? 

a. 1 year or less

b. 2-5 years

c. 6-10 years

d. more than 10 years [but less than all my life]

e. all my life

22. Including your primary language, please name each language you speak.
80

a. English

b. Spanish

c. French

d. Illocano

e. Vietnamese

f. Chinese

g. Japanese

h. Korean

i. Tagolog

j. Hawaiian

k. Hawaii Pidgin English

l. Sāmoan 

m. Chamorro

n. Carolinian

o. Tongan 

p. Other: Please list __________________

q. No Response 

23. What race/ethnicity do you consider yourself? 

a. White

b. Native Hawaiian

c. Chinese 

d. Japanese 

e. Filipino 

f. Korean 

g. Vietnamese

h. Other Asian ________________

i. Micronesian (includes Chuukese, Kasraean, Marshallese, Palauan, Pohnpeian, 

Yapese, Carolinian, Chamorro, and others)

j. Samoan 

k. Tongan

l. Other Pacific Islander ________________

m. Black or African American

n. American Indian or Alaskan Native 

o. Hispanic or Latino

p. Other

q. No response
81

24. What is the highest level of education you have completed? 

a. 8th Grade or Less

b. Some high school

c. High School Graduate, GED

d. Some college, community college or AA

e. College Graduate

f. Graduate School, Law School, Medical School

g. No Response

25. What is your current employment status? 

a. Unemployed

b. Student

c. Employed full-time

d. Homemaker

e. Employed part-time

f. Retired 

g. None of the above: Please specify __________________

h. No Response

26. What is your occupation? [open ended] ___________________

27. May I ask, what is your annual household income? 

a. Under $10,000

b. $10,000-19,999

c. $20,000-29,999

d. $30,000-39,999

e. $40,000-49,999

f. $50,000-59,999

g. $60,000-74,999

h. $75,000-99,999

i. $100,000-149,999

j. $150,000 or More

k. No Response 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

If you would like a copy of the results, please provide us with your mailing address or email address 

(write on separate contact sheet that is not linked to survey answers).

Do you have questions or comments for which you would like me to provide our contact information? 
82

Appendix C: Hawaiʻi NCRMP Survey Demographic Results28,29

Island Percent of 

sample

Percent of 

sample

(weighted)

Percent of population (2010 

US Census)

Oʻahu 29% 70% 70%

Hawaiʻi 28% 14% 14%

Maui 21% 11% 11%

Kauaʻi 19% 5% 5%

Molokaʻi 2% 1% 1%

Lānaʻi <1% <1% <1%

Gender Sample 2010 US Census

Male 54% 50%

Female 45% 50%

No Response <1% N/A

Race/Ethnicity Sample 2010 US Census

White 38% 27%

Asian 25% 42%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 13% 9%

Hispanic 3% 7%

Black/African American 1% 2%

American Indian/Alaskan Native <1% <1%

Other 2% 1%

2 or more races 12% 18%

No Response 6% N/A

 

28 The Hawaiʻi NCRMP survey results are presented using post stratification sampling weights (weighted by island 

population). The weights are as follows: Oʻahu = 2.40, Hawaiʻi = 0.49, Maui = 0.50, Kauaʻi = 0.26, Molokaʻi = 

0.22, Lānaʻi = 0.29.

29 2010 US Census results in this section refer to the adult population of Hawaiʻi.
83

Age Sample 2010 US Census

18-24 year olds 9% 12%

25-44 year olds 24% 34%

45-64 year olds 37% 35%

65-84 year olds 20% 16%

85+ years old 2% 3%

No Response 9% N/A

Education Level Sample 2010 US Census30

Less than high school 3% 10%

High School Graduate, GED 20% 30%

Some college, community college or AA 28% 34%

College Graduate 31% 18%

Graduate School, Law School, Medical School 15% 9%

No Response 3% N/A

Annual Household Income Sample31 2010 US Census32

Under $10,000 10% 6%

$10,000 to $19,999 6% 7%

$20,000 to $29,999 11% 8%

$30,000 to $39,999 9% 8%

$40,000 to $49,999 9% 8%

$50,000 to $59,999 11% 8%

$60,000 to $74,999 10% 10%

$75,000 to $99,999 13% 15%

$100,000 to $149,999 12% 18%

$150,000 or More 9% 13%

 

30 2012 ACS 5-yr estimates used as a proxy. The 2010 US Census did not collect this information. 31 Answers of “no response” are left absent from the analysis of household income due to high rate of occurrence 

(approximately 26%). 32 2012 ACS 5-yr estimates used as a proxy. The 2010 US Census did not collect this information.
84

Year(s) of Residence33 Sample

1 year or less 4%

2-5 years 10%

6-10 years 8%

More than 10 years (less than all my 

life)

40%

All my life 39%

Languages Spoken34 Sample

English 94%

Spanish 9%

Hawaiian 7%

Japanese 7%

Tagolog 6%

French 4%

Ilocano 3%

Chinese 2%

Hawaiian Pidgin English 2%

Samoan 1%

Other 8%

Employment Status35 Sample

Unemployed 6%

Student 4%

Employed full-time 47%

Homemaker 4%

Employed part-time 7%

Retired 25%

No Response 7%

 

33 The 2010 US Census did not collect this type of information.

34 The 2010 US Census did not collect this type of information, and the 2012 ACS 5-yr estimates collected this data 

in a different fashion than that of the Hawaiʻi NCRMP survey.

35 The 2010 US Census did not collect this information across the categories of the Hawaiʻi NCRMP survey.
85

Appendix D: NCRMP Secondary Data Sources for Hawaiʻi

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

Centers for Disease 

Control and 

Prevention

Stats of the State 

of Hawaiʻi

2012 These data are on birth and death 

records in the state of Hawaiʻi. They 

are compiled from birth and death 

certificates as well as patient medical 

records. 

2009 http://www.cdc.g

ov/nchs/pressroo

m/stats_states.ht

m

Central Intelligence 

Agency

The World 

Factbook Life 

Expectancy at 

Birth

2013 These data represent the average 

number of years to be lived by a group 

of people born in the same year, if 

mortality at each age remains constant 

in the future.

2014 https://www.cia.g

ov/library/publica

tions/the-worldfactbook/rankord

er/2102rank.html

Central Intelligence 

Agency

The World 

Factbook 

Inflation Rate 

(Consumer 

Prices)

2014 Inflation rate (consumer prices) 

compares the annual percent change in 

consumer prices with the previous 

year's consumer prices.

2003-

2014

https://www.cia.g

ov/library/publica

tions/the-worldfactbook/rankord

er/2092rank.html

Department of 

Commerce (DOC), 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA), Ocean and 

Coastal Resource 

Management 

(OCRM), National 

Marine Protected 

Areas Center (MPAC)

MPA Inventory 

Database 

(10/2014)

2014 The MPA Inventory is a 

comprehensive catalog that provides 

detailed information for existing marine 

protected areas in the United States. 

The inventory provides geospatial 

boundary information (in polygon 

format) and classification attributes that 

seek to define the conservation 

objectives, protection level, governance 

and related management criteria for all 

sites in the database. The 

comprehensive inventory of federal, 

state and territorial MPA sites provides 

governments and stakeholders with 

2014 http://marineprot

ectedareas.noaa.g

ov/dataanalysis/

mpainventory/
86

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

access to information to make better 

decisions about the current and future 

use of place-based conservation. The 

information also will be used to inform 

the development of the national system 

of marine protected areas as required 

by Executive Order 13158.

Department of 

Commerce (DOC), 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA), National 

Ocean Service (NOS), 

Office for Coastal 

Management (OCM)

Time-Series 

Data on the 

Ocean and Great 

Lakes Economy 

for Counties, 

States, and the 

Nation between 

2005 and 2012 

(Sector Level) 

(ENOW)

2015 Economics: National Ocean Watch 

(ENOW) contains annual time-series 

data for over 400 coastal counties, 30 

coastal states, 8 regions, and the nation, 

derived from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics and the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. It describes six economic 

sectors that depend on the oceans and 

Great Lakes and measures four 

economic indicators: Establishments, 

Employment, Wages, and Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP).

2005-

2014

http://coast.noaa.

gov/dataregistry/s

earch/dataset/C37

22030-943C4BEE-B063-

06715F815891

Department of 

Commerce (DOC), 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA), National 

Ocean Service (NOS), 

Coastal Services 

Center (CSC)

Spatial Trends in 

Coastal 

Socioeconomics 

(STICS): Total 

Economy of 

Coastal Areas

2013 These market data provide a 

comprehensive set of measures of 

changes in economic activity 

throughout the coastal regions of the 

United States. In regard to the sources 

of data, establishments, employment, 

and wages are taken from the Quarterly 

Census of Employment and Wages 

(QCEW). These data series also is 

known as the ES-202 data. These data 

are based on the quarterly reports of 

nearly all employers in the United 

States. These reports are filed with each 

state’s employment or labor 

1990-

2014

http://coast.noaa.

gov/dataregistry/s

earch/dataset/info

/coastaleconomy
87

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

department, and each state then 

transmits the data to the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS), where the 

national databases are maintained. The 

data for the Coastal Economies have 

been taken from the national databases 

at BLS (except in the case of 

Massachusetts). Gross State Product 

(GSP) data are taken from the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis (BEA), which 

develops the estimates of GSP from a 

number of sources. In regard to 

“employment,” data are reported by 

employers, not employees, and does 

not contain any information about age. 

There is no difference between 

“employed” and “employment”. The 

source is known as the payroll survey, a 

survey filed by employers every 3 

months showing the number of people 

employed at each establishment in each 

of the preceding 3 months. 

Environmental 

Protection Agency

EPA Assessment 

and Total 

Maximum Daily 

Load Tracking 

and 

Implementation 

System 

(ATTAINS)

2014 The Assessment and Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking and 

Implementation System (ATTAINS) is 

an online system for accessing 

information about the conditions in the 

Nation’s surface waters. The Clean 

Water Act requires states, territories 

and authorized tribes (states for 

brevity) to monitor water pollution and 

report to EPA every two years on the 

waters they have evaluated. This 

2002, 

2004, 

2006, 

2008, 

2010, 

2012, 

2014

https://www.epa.

gov/waterdata/ass

essment-andtotal-maximumdaily-loadtracking-andimplementationsystem-attains
88

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

process is called assessment. Part of 

this process is deciding which waters 

do not meet water quality standards 

because they are too polluted. These 

degraded waters are called impaired 

(polluted enough to require action) and 

are placed on a State list for future 

actions to reduce pollution.

This information reported to EPA by 

states is available in ATTAINS. The 

information is made available via the 

ATTAINS web reports, as well as 

through other EPA tools. The 

ATTAINS web reports provide users 

with easy access to view the 

information on the status of waters at 

the national, state and site-specific 

waterbody levels. To access this 

information, click the Get Data/Tool 

tab above.

Environmental 

Protection Agency

EPA Annual 

Beach 

Notification 

Summary 

Reports --

Closures and 

Advisories

2012 These fact sheets summarize beach 

monitoring and notification data 

submitted to EPAfor each swimming 

season. Beach water monitoring is 

conducted primarily to detect bacteria 

that indicate the possible presence of 

disease-causing microbes (pathogens) 

from sewage or fecal pollution. People 

swimming in water contaminated with 

these types of pathogens can contract 

diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, 

2006, 

2010, 

2011, 

2012

http://water.epa.g

ov/type/oceb/bea

ches/2011_seaso

n.cfm
89

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

eyes, ears, skin, and upper respiratory 

tract. When monitoring results show 

levels of concern, the state or local 

government issues a beach advisory or 

closure notice until further sampling 

shows that the water quality is meeting 

the applicable standards. 

Beach water pollution can occur for a 

number of reasons including 

stormwater runoff after heavy rainfall, 

treatment plant malfunctions,sewer 

system overflows, and pet and wildlife 

waste on or near the beach. To help 

minimize beachgoers' risk of exposure 

to pathogens in beachwaters, EPA is 

helping communities build and 

properly operate sewage treatment 

plants, working to reduce overflows as 

much as possible, and working with the 

U.S. Coast Guard to reduce discharges 

from boats and larger ships. Under the 

Beaches Environmental Assessment 

and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 

2000, EPA provides annual grants to 

coastal and Great Lakes states, 

territories, and eligible tribes to help 

local authorities monitor their coastal 

and Great Lakes beaches and notify the 

public of water quality conditions that 

may be unsafe for swimming.

Environmental 

Protection Agency

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency; Air 

2016 This data set provides the number of 

days per year that air advisories were in 

effect (i.e. the number of “good” days, 

1980-

2016

https://www.epa.

gov/outdoor-airquality-data/air-
90

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

Quality Index 

Report

the number of “moderate” days, the 

number “unhealthy for sensitive 

groups” days, “unhealthy” days, and 

“very unhealthy” days). The data can 

be delineated by county or by city. The 

pollutants examined are CO, PM2.5, 

PM10, NO2, O3, and SO2. 

quality-indexreport

Environmental 

Protection Agency; 

Technology Transfer 

Network 

Clearinghouse for 

Inventories & 

Emissions Factors.

The National 

Emissions 

Inventory

2016 This data set summarizes ammonia, 

carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, 

particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, 

volatile organic compounds, mercury, 

acid gas, greenhouse gases, glycol 

ether, metals, VOC, PCBs, POM, and

PAH emissions at the national, state, 

and county level for 2011 and 2014. 

Data is measured in tons.

2011, 

2014

https://www.epa.

gov/airemissionsinventories/natio

nal-emissionsinventory-nei

Environmental 

Protection Agency; 

Landfill Methane 

Outreach Program 

(LMOP)

Landfill-level 

data only

2016 LMOP tracks key data for landfill gas 

(LFG) energy projects and municipal 

solid waste (MSW) landfills in the 

United States. LMOP’s Landfill and 

Landfill Gas Energy Database contains 

information about projects in various 

stages such as planning, under 

construction, operational, and 

shutdown, and is also a data repository 

for more than 2,400 MSW landfills that 

are either accepting waste or closed in 

the past few decades. The LMOP 

Database contains landfill information 

such as such as physical address, 

latitude and longitude, owner/operator 

organization, operational status, year 

opened, actual or expected closure 

2016 https://www.epa.

gov/lmop/landfill

-gas-energyproject-data-andlandfill-technicaldata#landfills
91

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

year, design capacity, amount of waste 

in place, gas collection system status, 

and LFG collected amount. For 

landfills that report under EPA’s 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

(GHGRP), LMOP cross-references that 

dataset by including GHGRP’s 7-digit 

Facility Identifier.

Gallup Gallup 

Economic 

Confidence 

Index

2015 Gallup's Economic Confidence Index is 

based on the combined responses to 

two questions asking Americans, first, 

to rate economic conditions in the 

country today, and second, whether 

they think economic conditions in the 

country as a whole are getting better or 

getting worse. The Index is computed 

by adding the percentage of Americans 

rating current economic conditions 

(("excellent" + "good") minus "poor") 

to the percentage saying the economy is 

("getting better" minus "getting 

worse"), and then dividing that sum by 

2. The Index has a theoretical 

maximum value of +100 and a 

theoretical minimum value of -100. 

Values above zero indicate that more 

Americans have a positive than a 

negative view of the economy; values 

below zero indicate net-negative views, 

and zero indicates that positive and 

negative views are equal.

2013-

2014

http://www.gallu

p.com/poll/12573

5/economicconfidenceindex.aspx
92

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

Hawaiʻi Tourism 

Authority

Hawaii 

Historical 

Visitor Statistics

2008-2013 This data set contains information on 

the arrivals to the Hawaiʻi Islands, the 

purpose of visits, tourist expenditures, 

and tourist activities. 

2007-

2012

http://www.hawai

itourismauthority.

org/research/repo

rts/historicalvisitor-statistics/

HML Project Team Environmental 

Use and 

Dependence -

HML Project 

Team Collection

2014 This data set is comprised of uses 

occurring in study areas as well as 

attendance figures for parks located in 

the study areas. Park visitation to 

national, state, and county parks as well 

as National Wildlife Refuge areas are 

included in this data set. Use data 

includes fishing, diving, and boating in 

the study area. 

Sources:

-AS Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security/U.S. 

Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and 

Boating Safety, Professional 

Association of Diving Instructors, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

-CNMI Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security/U.S. 

Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and 

Boating Safety, Professional 

Association of Diving Instructors, 

Diveadvisor.com, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration.

2013
93

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

-FL Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security/U.S. 

Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and 

Boating Safety, Professional 

Association of Diving Instructors, 

Diveadvisor.com, 

Worldwidefishing.com, Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, Florida Department of 

Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 

Florida Park Service.

-Guam Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security/U.S. 

Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and 

Boating Safety, Professional 

Association of Diving Instructors, 

Diveadvisor.com, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration.

-HI Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security/U.S. 

Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and 

Boating Safety, Professional 

Association of Diving Instructors, 

Diveadvisor.com, 

Worldwidefishing.com, Department of 

Land and Natural Resources, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Hawaiʻi Tourism 
94

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

Authority, National Association of 

State Park Directors, County of

Hawaiʻi Fire Department: Ocean Safety 

Division.

-PR Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security/U.S. 

Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and 

Boating Safety, Professional 

Association of Diving Instructors, 

Diveadvisor.com, 

Worldwidefishing.com, Puerto Rico 

Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

-USVI Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security/U.S. 

Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and 

Boating Safety, Professional 

Association of Diving Instructors, 

Diveadvisor.com, 

Worldwidefishing.com, National 

Archives and Records Administration 

Office of the Federal Register, 

Department of Planning and Natural 

Resources Division of Fish & Wildlife.

Institute for Health 

Metrics and 

Evaluation (IHME)

United States 

Adult Life 

Expectancy by 

2011 This is a complete time series for life 

expectancy from 1987 to 2007 for all 

US counties, and released as part of 

2007 http://ghdx.health

data.org/record/u

nited-statesadult-life-
95

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

County 1987-

2007

IHME research published in Population 

Health Metrics.

expectancycounty-1987-

2007

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA), Coastal 

Change Analysis 

Program (CCAP)

National 

Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration, 

Coastal Change 

Analysis 

Program 

(CCAP) 

Regional Land 

Cover Data

2012 The Coastal Change Analysis Program 

(C-CAP) produces a nationally 

standardized database of land cover and 

land change information for the coastal 

regions of the U.S. C-CAP products are 

developed using multiple dates of 

remotely sensed imagery and consist of 

raster-based land cover maps for each 

date of analysis, as well as a file that 

highlights what changes have occurred 

between these dates and where the 

changes were located. These data 

highlight the relative effects of 

different landscape features on water 

quality, such as increased polluted 

runoff from impervious surfaces and 

the mitigating impacts of forests. 

NOAA produces high resolution CCAP land cover products, for select 

geographies. GIS and tabular data was 

accessed June 2012 and prepared for 

the project by NOAA Coastal Services 

Center, Charleston SC.

2001-

2007 

(variou

s)

http://www.csc.n

oaa.gov/digitalco

ast/data/ccapregi

onal

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA), National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS)

Marine 

Recreational 

Information 

Program (MRIP)

2015 The Marine Recreational Information 

Program, or MRIP, is the way NOAA 

Fisheries counts and reports marine 

recreational catch and effort. Driven by 

data provided by anglers and captains, 

MRIP produces better information 

through better science and, equally 

1981-

2015

http://www.st.nm

fs.noaa.gov/recre

ationalfisheries/index
96

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

important, increased transparency, 

accountability, and engagement.

NOAA Fisheries is entrusted with 

ensuring the long-term health of ocean 

fisheries and other marine life in 

federal waters. One of our most 

important jobs is working with both 

commercial and recreational fishermen 

to count what species are being caught, 

when, where, and how. This 

information is used to decide how 

many fish can be taken recreationally 

and commercially without negatively 

affecting the sustainability of individual 

fisheries. It also ensures appropriate 

measures are taken to recover fisheries 

in trouble.

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA), National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), 

Fisheries Statistics 

Division

Annual 

Commercial 

Landing 

Statistics

2015 The NOAA Fisheries, Fisheries 

Statistics Division has automated data 

summary programs that anyone can use 

to rapidly and easily summarize U.S. 

commercial fisheries landings. These 

programs allow you to query our 

commercial fishery data bases and 

summarize United States domestic 

commercial landings in several 

formats. Domestic fishery landings are 

those fish and shellfish that are landed 

and sold in the 50 states by U.S. 

fishermen and do not include landings 

made in U.S. territories or by foreign 

fishermen. You can summarize the 

1950-

2015

http://www.st.nm

fs.noaa.gov/com

mercialfisheries/commer

ciallandings/annuallandings/index
97

Source (originator) Data Set Title Publication 

Date

Abstract Data 

Year(s) 

URL

pounds and dollar value of commercial 

landings by your choice of years, 

months, states and species for the years 

1990 onwards. The volume and value 

of 1950 onwards landings can be 

summarized by: years, states and 

species; by years, states, species and 

fishing gears; or years, states, species, 

finfish or shellfish groups, and price 

per pound.

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA), National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), 

Marine Recreational 

Information Program 

(MRIP)

Marine 

Recreational 

Fisheries 

Statistics Survey 

(MRFSS)

2015 The Marine Recreational Fisheries 

Statistics Program team provides 

essential marine recreational fisheries 

information to government, scientists, 

and the public. Since 1979, we have 

conducted the annual Marine 

Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey 

(MRFSS). The purpose of this national 

survey is to provide a reliable database 

for estimating the impact of 

recreational fishing on marine 

resources. The MRFSS now 

encompasses nearly 30 years of 

continuous and standardized data, and 

represents the most scientifically 

credible and consistent picture of 

marine recreational catch, effort, and 

participation in the world.

1981-

2015

http://www.st.nm

fs.noaa.gov/st1/re

creational/queries

/

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA), National 

Marine Fisheries 

Western 

Pacific 

Fisheries 

Information 

Network

2016 Established in 1981, the Western Pacific 

Fisheries Information Network 

(WPacFIN) is a cooperative program 

involving the WPacFIN central office at 

the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science 

1980-

2015

https://www.pifsc

.noaa.gov/wpacfi

n/
98

Service (NMFS), 

Pacific Islands 

Fisheries Science 

Center (PIFSC), 

Center (PIFSC) and fisheries agencies of 

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), 

Guam, and Hawaii. WPacFIN compiles 

fisheries information collected by these 

agencies and provides them technical 

expertise and tools to help them collect, 

manage, summarize, and quality control 

fishery-dependent data needed for local, 

federal, and international assessment and 

management decisions. WPacFIN also 

works closely with the Western Pacific 

Regional Fishery Management Council

and NOAA’s Pacific Islands Regional 

Office (PIRO). 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA), National 

Ocean Service, Office 

of Response and 

Restoration, 

Hazardous Materials 

Response Division, 

Seattle, Washington

Hawaii ESI: 

HYDRO 

(Hydrology 

Polygons and 

Lines)

2001 This data set contains vector arcs and 

polygons representing coastal 

hydrography used in the creation of the 

Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) 

for Hawaiʻi. The HYDRO data layer 

contains all annotation used in producing 

the atlas. The annotation features are 

categorized into three subclasses in order 

to simplify the mapping and quality 

control procedures: GEOG or geographic 

features, SOC or socioeconomic features, 

and HYDRO or water features. This data 

set comprises a portion of the ESI for 

Hawaiʻi. ESI data characterize the 

marine and coastal environments and 

wildlife by their sensitivity to spilled oil. 

The ESI data include information for 

three main components: shoreline 

1978-

2001

http://archive.orr.

noaa.gov/topic_s

ubtopic_entry.ph

p?RECORD_KE

Y%28entry_subt

opic_topic%29=e

ntry_id,subtopic_

id,topic_id&entry

_id%28entry_sub

topic_topic%29=

849&subtopic_id

%28entry_subtop

ic_topic%29=8&t

opic_id%28entry

_subtopic_topic

%29=1
99

habitats, sensitive biological resources, 

and human-use resources.

The Henry J. Kaiser 

Family Foundation

State Health 

Facts: Infant 

Mortality Rate 

(Deaths per 

1,000 Live 

Births)

2013 These data represent the number of infant 

deaths per 1,000 live births based on 

linked birth and death records from the 

period from 2007-2009.

2007-

2009

http://kff.org/othe

r/state-

indicator/infant-

death-rate/

The Henry J. Kaiser 

Family Foundation

State Health 

Facts: Number 

of Cancer 

Deaths per 

100,000 

Population

2013 These data represent age-adjusted rates 

per 100,000 U.S. standard population. 

Rates for the United States and each state 

are based on populations enumerated in 

the 2010 census as of April 1. Rates for 

Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, 

American Samoa, and Northern Marianas 

are based on the 2010 census, estimated 

as of July 1, 2010. Since death rates are 

affected by the population composition 

of a given area, age-adjusted death rates 

should be used for comparisons between 

areas because they control for differences 

in population composition.

2010 http://kff.org/othe

r/state-

indicator/cancer-

death-rate-per-

100000/

The World Bank World Bank –

Annual Visitor 

Arrivals

2014 The World Bank is a vital source of 

financial and technical assistance to 

developing countries around the world. 

We are not a bank in the ordinary sense 

but a unique partnership to reduce 

poverty and support development. The 

World Bank Group comprises five 

institutions managed by their member 

countries. Annual visitor arrivals is an 

international tourism indicator based on 

the number of tourists who travel to a 

country other than that in which they 

usually reside, and outside their usual 

1995-

2014

http://data.worldb

ank.org/indicator/

ST.INT.ARVL
100

environment, for a period not exceeding 

12 months and whose main purpose in 

visiting is other than an activity 

remunerated from within the country 

visited. When data on number of tourists 

are not available, the number of visitors, 

which include tourists, same-day visitors, 

cruise passengers, and crew members, is 

shown instead.

The World Bank World Bank –

Fish/Mammal 

species 

threatened

2010, 2011 The World Bank is a vital source of 

financial and technical assistance to 

developing countries around the world. 

We are not a bank in the ordinary sense 

but a unique partnership to reduce 

poverty and support development. The 

World Bank Group comprises five

institutions managed by their member 

countries. Fish species are based on 

Froese, R. and Pauly, D. (eds). 2008. 

Threatened species are the number of 

species classified by the IUCN as 

endangered, vulnerable, rare, 

indeterminate, out of danger, or 

insufficiently known.

Mammal species are mammals excluding 

whales and porpoises. Threatened species 

are the number of species classified by 

the IUCN as endangered, vulnerable, 

rare, indeterminate, out of danger, or 

insufficiently known.

2010, 

2011

http://data.worldb

ank.org/indicator/

EN.FSH.THRD.

NO

http://data.worldb

ank.org/indicator/

EN.MAM.THRD

.NO

The World Bank World Bank –

Climate 

Change 

2012 The World Bank is a vital source of 

financial and technical assistance to 

developing countries around the world. 

We are not a bank in the ordinary sense 

1900-

2012

http://sdwebx.wo

rldbank.org/clima

teportal/index.cf

m?page=downsca
101

Knowledge 

Portal

but a unique partnership to reduce 

poverty and support development. The 

World Bank Group comprises five 

institutions managed by their member 

countries.

The World Bank Climate Change 

Knowledge Portal reports monthly data 

since 1900 on temperature and 

precipitation for each world nation 

led_data_downlo

ad&menu=histori

cal

The World Bank World Bank -

Population, 

Total

2014 The World Bank is a vital source of 

financial and technical assistance to 

developing countries around the world. 

We are not a bank in the ordinary sense 

but a unique partnership to reduce 

poverty and support development. The 

World Bank Group comprises five 

institutions managed by their member 

countries. Total population is based 

on the de facto definition of population, 

which counts all residents regardless of 

legal status or citizenship--except for 

refugees not permanently settled in the 

country of asylum, who are generally 

considered part of the population of their 

country of origin. The values shown are 

midyear estimates.

2012-

2013

http://data.worldb

ank.org/indicator/

SP.POP.TOTL

The World Bank World Bank -

GDP (current 

US$)

2014 The World Bank is a vital source of 

financial and technical assistance to 

developing countries around the world. 

We are not a bank in the ordinary sense 

but a unique partnership to reduce 

poverty and support development. The 

World Bank Group comprises five 

institutions managed by their member 

countries. GDP at purchaser's prices is 

2005-

2013

http://data.worldb

ank.org/indicator/

NY.GDP.MKTP.

CD/countries/PR

?display=graph
102

the sum of gross value added by all 

resident producers in the economy plus 

any product taxes and minus any 

subsidies not included in the value of the 

products. It is calculated without making 

deductions for depreciation of fabricated 

assets or for depletion and degradation of 

natural resources. Data are in current 

U.S. dollars. Dollar figures for GDP are 

converted from domestic currencies 

using single year official exchange rates.

The World Bank World Bank -

Improved 

water source 

(% of 

population with 

access)

2015 Access to an improved water source 

refers to the percentage of the population 

using an improved drinking water source. 

The improved drinking water source 

includes piped water on premises (piped 

household water connection located 

inside the user’s dwelling, plot or yard), 

and other improved drinking water 

sources (public taps or standpipes, tube 

wells or boreholes, protected dug wells, 

protected springs, and rainwater 

collection).

1990-

2015

http://data.worldb

ank.org/indicator/

SH.H2O.SAFE.Z

S

U.S. Department of 

Commerce Bureau of 

Economic Analysis

Advance 2013 

and Revised 

1997-2012 

Statistics of 

GDP by State

2014 These statistics reflect the results of the 

comprehensive revision of gross 

domestic product (GDP) by state for 

1997–2012. This revision not only 

incorporates new and revised source 

data, but it also includes significant 

improvements in classification and 

statistical methods to more accurately 

portray the state economies. Significant 

changes introduced with this revision 

include: updated industry definitions 

consistent with the 2007 North American 

1997-

2013

https://www.bea.

gov/newsreleases

/regional/gdp_sta

te/gsp_newsrelea

se.htm
103

Industry Classification System (NAICS), 

results of the 2013 comprehensive 

revision of state personal income, results 

of the 2013 comprehensive revision of 

the national income and product accounts 

and the 2014 comprehensive revision of 

the annual industry accounts, which 

included the recognition of research and 

development (R&D) expenditures as 

capital, the capitalization of 

entertainment, literary, and other artistic 

originals, the expansion of the capitalization of the ownership transfer 

costs of residential fixed assets, the use 

of an improved accrual accounting 

treatment of transactions for defined 

benefit pension plans, and improved 

methods for computing financial services 

provided by commercial banks

U.S. Department of 

Health and Human 

Services

National Vital 

Statistics 

Reports: 

Deaths: 

Preliminary 

Data for 2011

2012 These are preliminary U.S. data on 

deaths, death rates, life expectancy, 

leading causes of death, and infant 

mortality for 2011 by selected 

characteristics such as age, sex, race, and 

Hispanic origin. Preliminary data in this 

report are based on records of deaths that 

occurred in calendar year 2011, which 

were received from state vital statistics 

offices and processed by the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention’s 

National Center for Health Statistics 

(NCHS) as of June 12, 2012.

2011 http://www.cdc.g

ov/nchs/data/nvsr

/nvsr61/nvsr61_0

6.pdf

U.S. Department of 

Health and Human 

Services

National Vital 

Statistics 

Reports: 

2013 These data represent final 2010 data on 

U.S. deaths, death rates, life expectancy, 

infant mortality, and trends by selected 

2010 http://www.cdc.g

ov/nchs/data/nvsr
104

Deaths: Final 

Data for 2010

characteristics such as age, sex, Hispanic 

origin, race, state of residence, and cause 

of death.

/nvsr61/nvsr61_0

4.pdf

U.S. Energy 

Information 

Administration

EIA State 

Electricity 

Profiles

1991-2014 The State Electricity Profiles presents a 

summary of key State statistics for 2000, 

and 2004 through 2010. The tables 

present summary statistics; ten largest 

plants by generating capacity; top five 

entities ranked by retail sales; electric 

power industry generating capacity by 

primary energy source; electric power 

industry 

generation of electricity by primary 

energy source; utility delivered fuel 

prices for coal, petroleum, and natural 

gas; electric power emissions estimates; 

retail sales, revenue, and average revenue 

per kilowatthour by sector; and utility 

retail sales statistics. 

Data published in the State Electricity 

Profiles are compiled from five forms 

filed annually by electric utilities and 

other electric power producers.

1990-

2014

http://www.eia.g

ov/electricity/stat

e/

United States Census 

Bureau

Census 2000 2002 Summary File 3 contains population and 

housing data based on Census 2000 

questions asked on the long form of a 

one-in-six sample of the population. 

Population items include marital status, 

disability, educational attainment, 

occupation, income, ancestry, veteran 

status, and many other 

characteristics. Housing items include 

tenure (whether the unit is owner- or 

renter-occupied), occupancy status, 

housing value, mortgage status, price 

2000 http://www.censu

s.gov/main/www/

cen2000.html
105

asked, and more. In addition to the 50 

states and District of Columbia, the U.S. 

Census Bureau also conducts censuses 

and surveys in the the United States' 

Island Areas. Census and survey 

operations are conducted in cooperation 

with the governments of the the Island 

Areas and frequently include 

modifications to the questionnaires to 

help the local and federal governments 

better understand the populations being 

counted.

United States Census 

Bureau

2010 Census 2011 Summary File 1 shows detailed tables on 

age, sex, households, families, 

relationship to householder, housing 

units, detailed race and Hispanic or 

Latino origin groups, and group quarters.

2010 http://www.censu

s.gov/2010census

/data/

United States Census 

Bureau

2008-

2012 ACS 5-

Year Estimates

2013 The ACS provides information on more 

than 40 topics, including education, 

language ability, the foreign-born, 

marital status, migration and many more. 

Each year the survey randomly samples 

around 3.5 million addresses and 

produces statistics that cover 1-year, 3-

year, and 5-year periods for geographic 

areas in the United States and Puerto 

Rico.

2012 http://www2.cens

us.gov/acs2012_5

yr/summaryfile/

United States Census 

Bureau

2013 

Population 

Estimates: 

Annual 

Estimates of 

the Resident 

Population: 

2014 The estimates are based on the 2010 

Census and reflect changes to the April 

1, 2010 population due to the Count 

Question Resolution program and 

geographic program revisions. The 

resident population for each year is 

estimated since the most recent decennial 

census by using measures of population 

2010-

2013

http://factfinder.c

ensus.gov/faces/t

ableservices/jsf/p

ages/productview

.xhtml?pid=PEP_

2013_PEPANNR

ES&prodType=ta

ble
106

April 1, 2010 

to July 1, 2013

change. The resident population includes 

all people currently residing in the 

United States. 

United States Census 

Bureau

2009-2013 

ACS 5-Year 

Estimates

2014 The ACS provides information on more 

than 40 topics, including education, 

language ability, the foreign-born, 

marital status, migration and many more. 

Each year the survey randomly samples 

around 3.5 million addresses and 

produces statistics that cover 1-year, 3-

year, and 5-year periods for geographic 

areas in the United States and Puerto 

Rico.

2013 http://www2.cens

us.gov/acs2013_5

yr/summaryfile/

United States Census 

Bureau

Building 

Permits Survey

2015 Data collected include number of 

buildings, number of housing units, and 

permit valuation by size of structure. 

This survey covers all places issuing 

building permits for privately-owned 

residential structures. Over 98 percent of 

all privately-owned residential buildings 

constructed are in permit-issuing places.

2004-

2014

http://www.censu

s.gov/constructio

n/bps/stateannual.

html

United States Census 

Bureau

Quarterly 

Workforce 

Indicators

2015 The Quarterly Workforce Indicators 

(QWI) are a set of economic indicators 

including employment, job creation, 

earnings, and other measures of 

employment flows. The QWI are 

reported using detailed firm 

characteristics (geography, industry, age, 

size) and worker demographics 

information (sex, age, education, race, 

ethnicity). QWI data are available 

through the following access tools:

2013-

2015

http://lehd.ces.ce

nsus.gov/data/

United States Census 

Bureau

County 

Business 

Patterns

2014 County Business Patterns (CBP) is an 

annual series that provides subnational 

economic data by industry. This series 

1998-

2012

http://www.censu

s.gov/econ/cbp/
107

includes the number of establishments, 

employment during the week of March 

12, first quarter payroll, and annual 

payroll.

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture Food and 

Nutrition Service

Supplemental 

Nutrition 

Assistance 

Program: 

Average 

Monthly 

Participation 

(Persons)

2015 SNAP offers nutrition assistance to 

millions of eligible, low-income 

individuals and families and provides 

economic benefits to communities. The 

number of persons participating is 

reported monthly. Annual averages are 

the sums divided by twelve.

2010-

2014

http://www.fns.us

da.gov/pd/supple

mental-nutrition-

assistance-

program-snap

US Geological 

Survey; Water Use in 

the United States

Estimated Use 

of Water in the 

United States: 

County-Level 

Data

2010 These data files present water-use 

estimates by county for the United States, 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands which 

support the State-level water-use 

estimates published in USGS Circular 1405, Estimated Use of Water in the 

United States in 2010. All States 

provided estimates for public supply, 

domestic, irrigation, livestock, 

aquaculture, industrial, mining, and 

thermoelectric power water use. All 

States also provided estimates of public supply deliveries for domestic use. All 

States have estimates of the total 

population served by public supply and 

how many people consume each type of 

water (groundwater, surface water, selfserviced). States optionally may have 

estimated public supply population 

served by groundwater and surface 

water. All States will have estimates of 

total irrigation. States optionally may 

2010 http://water.usgs.

gov/watuse/data/

2010/index.html
108

have estimated subtotals for crop 

irrigation and golf-course irrigation. No 

consumptive-use data were collected 

nationally for any of the categories for 

2010. No commercial water-use data 

were collected nationally for 2010.

No wastewater release data were 

collected nationally for 2010. No 

hydroelectric power instream use data 

were collected nationally for 2010. 

Public-supply deliveries for commercial, 

industrial, and thermoelectric power were 

not collected nationally for 2010.
109

Appendix E: Statistical Analyses Referenced in the Report36

Table 16: T-test; Tenure and Marine Resource Condition Perception

Marine Resource 

Has not lived in 

Hawaiʻi their whole 

life

Has lived in Hawaiʻi 

their whole life

Statistical test for 

difference

Weighted n Mean Weighted n Mean t P

value

Current Conditions

Ocean water quality 1317 3.79 829 3.53 5.59*** <0.01

Amount of coral 1139 3.02 729 2.81 3.78*** <0.01

Number of fish 1182 3.15 770 2.84 5.81*** <0.01

Diversity of Fish 1200 3.51 766 3.20 6.20*** <0.01

Size of Fish 1139 3.34 763 3.06 5.67*** <0.01

Change in conditions over last 10 years

Ocean water quality 1284 2.89 841 2.77 2.58*** <0.01

Amount of coral 1182 2.58 782 2.48 1.96** 0.05

Number of fish 1217 2.69 808 2.53 3.19*** <0.01

Diversity of Fish 1205 2.87 787 2.67 3.95*** <0.01

Size of Fish 1183 2.77 777 2.63 2.71*** <0.01

Note: Answers of “not sure” left absent from this analysis

 Higher mean values indicate a more positive perception

Table 17: Pearson correlation analysis; Reef Reliance and Management Support

Variable Management Support Index

Reef Reliance Index -0.092***

 

36 * statistically significant with 90% confidence; ** = statistically significant with 95% confidence; 

*** = statistically significant with 99% confidence
110

Table 18: T-test; Fishing/Gathering and Management Support

Management Approach

Respondent DOES NOT 

fish/gather

Respondent DOES 

fish/gather

Statistical test for 

difference

weighted n Mean weighted n Mean t p value

Better regulation of land use 

practices to prevent sediment 

from going to sea

1308 4.11 874 4.11 -0.08 0.94

Limits per person for certain 

fish species (size and amount)

1308 4.24 877 4.14 2.73*** <0.01

Seasonal openings/closures of 

fisheries

1263 4.06 870 4.00 1.44 0.15

Gear restrictions for fishing 1246 3.98 868 3.82 3.67*** <0.01

Better treatment of 

wastewater

1304 4.38 878 4.34 1.30 0.20

Law enforcement of existing 

rules/regulations

1297 4.17 879 4.11 1.57 0.12

Community participation in 

management

1304 4.21 875 4.26 -1.70* 0.09

Marine zoning 1125 3.91 793 3.80 2.60*** <0.01

Designated marine protected 

area

1263 4.11 870 3.99 3.21*** <0.01

Limited use for recreational 

activities (fishing, diving, 

snorkeling, boating)

1296 3.67 872 3.41 5.35*** <0.01

No Take Zones 1132 3.95 821 3.71 5.59*** <0.01

Establishment of a noncommercial fishing license1222 3.62 855 3.27 6.67*** <0.01

Note: Answers of “not sure” left absent from this analysis

 Higher mean values indicate more support

Table 19: Pearson correlation analysis; Oʻahu Residence and Fishing/Gathering

Variable Fishes and/or Gathers for marine resources

Resident of Oʻahu -0.117***