The Pride of Protecting Hawaii's Birds: "Indigenous Knowledge Was Not the Enemy of Conservation, But the Key" — Learning Collaborative Science from Hawaii's Wetlands

The Pride of Protecting Hawaii's Birds: "Indigenous Knowledge Was Not the Enemy of Conservation, But the Key" — Learning Collaborative Science from Hawaii's Wetlands

2026年01月15日 17:55

1) Why the Story of "Indigenous People Causing Bird Extinction" is So Strong

When island creatures disappear, we tend to seek an "easy culprit." It could be foreign settlers with guns or modern society introducing invasive species. However, in the case of Hawaiian waterbirds, a more deep-rooted culprit image has circulated for a long time: "The first people to arrive on the islands hunted the birds to extinction." This explanation has been taught as if it were a "scientific fact" for nearly half a century.


A new study has emerged that directly challenges this premise. The conclusion is provocative yet calm: there is no scientific evidence to categorically state that "Native Hawaiians (Kānaka ʻŌiwi) overhunted the waterbirds to extinction." Rather, it suggests that extinction likely resulted from a combination of factors, including climate change, invasive species, and changes in land use.


What's important here is that the study does not aim to deliver a "not guilty verdict." The goal is to reconstruct a crudely simplified history using data. Furthermore, it seeks to question the stereotype within the conservation world that "humans destroy nature wherever they go."


2) Data Shows "Timing of Extinction" is Not Linear

The first task of the study was to examine the skeleton of the conventional theory (i.e., humans arrived, hunted, and the birds disappeared) through the lens of "time." By meticulously organizing paleoecological evidence, such as fossils and sediments, to determine "how long those birds existed," the linear story begins to waver.


The key point is the variation in timing. When looking at the 18 extinct waterbird species, not all disappeared "immediately after human arrival." Some species had already ceased to be recorded before humans arrived, while others may have vanished during the Polynesian era, and some even had visual records remaining until after Europeans arrived.


In other words, the picture of "arrival = simultaneous extinction" is too simplistic, at least for waterbirds.

It's important not to misunderstand this as a reversal saying, "So humans had nothing to do with it." The study suggests that even for extinctions that might have occurred during the Polynesian era, the causes were likely not monolithic but rather "complex factors" involving both human and non-human elements.


3) A New Explanation: "Regime Shift-Type Extinction"

The intriguing aspect of this study is that it doesn't end with negation (the weakness of the overhunting culprit theory) but instead offers an alternative perspective. The proposed concept is "regime shift-type extinction."


Wetlands don't just gradually deteriorate. When multiple pressures overlap and exceed a "threshold," ecosystems can abruptly transition to a different state. Factors like water volume, vegetation, salinity, invasive predators, pathogens, and changes in land use can simultaneously act, causing wetlands to qualitatively change from "places where birds can live" to "places where birds find it hard to live."
The result is an apparent "sudden disappearance," which is the idea of "extinction as a regime shift."


This explanation is closer to the on-the-ground reality than narrowing down to a single culprit. In conservation, situations often collapse suddenly when "bad conditions overlap" rather than due to a single cause.


4) Re-evaluating the "Era When Birds Were Most Abundant": The Perspective of Indigenous Wetland Management

The study takes a further step by pointing out that waterbirds, currently endangered, were likely "most abundant just before the arrival of Europeans," during a time when wetland management was the foundation of society.


This reversal indicates the often-overlooked fact that it's not "because humans were there, they decreased," but rather "how humans interacted that caused both increases and decreases."


The focus here is on the wetland agricultural ecosystem known as loʻi (such as taro fields). Instead of treating wetlands solely as "objects to be protected from nature," the study suggests reconstructing them as management systems tied to life. The recovery of birds is not only about ecosystem restoration but also about repairing relationships with the community.


5) Reactions on Social Media: A Scientific Discussion Turning into a "Trust" Discussion

This topic doesn't end within the confines of the paper. It spreads on social media because, ultimately, this is not just about "ecology" but also a "narrative of responsibility."


(1) Reactions from the Expert Community: First Sharing Key Points, Then Focusing on the "Hypothesis's Validity"
In birdwatcher forums, the paper's information was quickly summarized, and details like which hypotheses were compared and how the extinction timings were organized were shared in a straightforward manner. Rather than heated debates, there was a strong impression that "this organization will serve as a foundation for future research."


(2) Reactions from Media/Professional Social Networks: Conservation Moving Towards "Integrating Indigenous Knowledge"
On professional social networks, the article's key points were briefly disseminated as "no evidence of overhunting," "complexity of climate change, invasive species, and land use change," and "importance of integrating indigenous knowledge." It was read more as material encouraging "collaborative conservation" rather than the study's content itself.


(3) Why the Reaction Shifts from "Science" to "Relationships"
This topic resonates because interpretations of the past influence current decision-making. If indigenous communities continue to be labeled as "perpetrators of extinction," the trust necessary for collaboration is damaged. Conversely, if erroneous premises are withdrawn based on evidence, the starting line for collaboration is set.


The study presents not only a new theory of causation but also a highly political point that "the premises on which we read history can change the future of conservation."


6) Implications for Japanese Readers: Conservation Strengthens When We Stop "Blaming"

What can be learned from this study is not limited to Hawaii's unique story.
When explaining extinction or degradation, we often adopt "simple narratives." While easy to understand, simple narratives, if incorrect, can persist for a long time. They can unjustly harm someone, disrupt collaboration, and ultimately distance conservation outcomes.


Therefore, what is needed is (1) to verify with data, (2) to reconstruct based on complex factors, and (3) to place local knowledge and practices not on the "outside" but at the "center."


"Protecting nature" cannot be achieved by looking only at nature. It's about how we reweave the relationship between nature and humans. The debate surrounding Hawaii's wetlands directly tackles this challenging issue.


Note (Basis of factual relationships in the text: Public information available for viewing)

  • The study states that there is no scientific basis for the overhunting by indigenous communities and cites the combination of climate change, invasive species, and land use change as extinction factors.

  • Commentary from researchers on the bias that "humans = inevitable exocide" has shaped conservation narratives.

  • Organization of the 18 extinct waterbird species (many species ceased to be recorded before arrival, etc.) and the four compared hypotheses (overhunting/deforestation/climate change/invasive species).

  • The view that the restoration of loʻi (wetland agricultural ecosystems) is important for waterbird recovery, and comments on "collapse of trust" and "exclusion from decision-making."

  • On professional SNS (LinkedIn), the key points of the article are shared in the above form (part of the post text and reaction count).


Reference URLs

Reference Articles

"The Myth that Native Hawaiians Caused Bird Extinctions, Proven Wrong by Research"
Source: https://phys.org/news/2026-01-myth-native-hawaiians-bird-extinctions.html

← Back to Article List