Based on the foundation that was established at the inaugural meeting for Strengthening Koʻolaupoko: A Community Resilience Initiative, continuing efforts related to development of a community resilience action plan are envisioned to occur as part of a series of workshops. The total number of workshops will be determined based on the rate of progress and at the community’s direction. The first workshop was convened on January 24, 2019 at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Course in Maunawili. Invitations were sent to the individuals and organizations

previously invited to the inaugural meeting, plus additional individuals and organizations that were subsequently identified. The workshop attendees included a broad range of Koʻolaupoko community leaders, as well as representatives of critical infrastructure owners and emergency management, health and safety agencies. There were approximately 42 attendees, as well as Hawaiian Electric staff; a list of attendees is included at the end of this summary.

The workshop began with introductory remarks and an overview of the process, followed by a working session intended to further refine and focus the list of identified strengths and vulnerabilities of the Koʻolaupoko community specific to a major hurricane event. The meeting was facilitated by Alani Apio and Linda Colburn. A high‐level summary of the workshop is provided below; specific input that was provided by attendees is captured in the revised strength and vulnerability matrices, which are attached as reference documents at the end of this summary.


Opening remarks were provided by Scott Seu, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs at Hawaiian Electric. He reminded the group that the Koʻolaupoko community resilience initiative is modeled after the Community Resilience Building Workshop Guide developed through community‐based experience by The Nature Conservancy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office for Coastal Management, and various other partners. It is intended to be a community‐driven process wherein participants identify the top hazards, current challenges, strengths, and priority actions to improve

the community’s resilience to natural and climate‐related hazards. He emphasized that an added benefit of the initiative is bringing together organizations and individuals with similar objectives to better understand how efforts by the various parties may be leveraged specifically for the Koʻolaupoko region.

As discussed at the inaugural meeting, the desire is to think broadly and consider resilience from a holistic perspective, including (1) community preparedness, (2) critical infrastructure and government preparedness, and (3) critical infrastructure risk reduction. Scott emphasized that it will be critical to incorporate each of these three pillars, such that the plan to build overall community resilience is based on a broad and diverse set of actions. Also, as discussed at the inaugural meeting, it was decided that the process would focus on a severe hurricane (i.e., Category 4 or 5 storm). Although it is understood

that there are other types of disasters that could affect Koʻolaupoko, the intent was to focus on a major hurricane given recent storm events in Hawaiʻi and other locations such as Puerto Rico. The initiative was designed to first build awareness through panel discussions featuring critical infrastructure owners


and emergency management, health and safety agency representatives, then to identify the vulnerabilities and strengths in the Koʻolaupoko community through a series of breakout sessions; these steps were conducted at the inaugural meeting in October 2018. Looking forward, the future steps will be to identify potential actions to address the vulnerabilities and/or reinforce the strengths, then to prioritize these actions as part of a plan that reflects what the group collectively believes is most important to pursue. It is

anticipated that there will be potential actions identified in each of the three pillars (community preparedness, critical infrastructure and government preparedness, and critical infrastructure risk reduction); some may be near‐term actions, while others may be longer‐term actions. Scott referenced handouts that were previously provided, including a summary of the three pillars of resilience as well as a process overview; copies are attached as reference documents to the inaugural meeting summary.

Specific to the current workshop, the goal is to refine the list of vulnerabilities and strengths to be addressed based on the initial information generated at the inaugural meeting. This effort is intended to allow participants time to more thoroughly explore the full range of input and to gain perspective from different sources, as well as to consider which features warrant the most attention, before moving forward with identification of potential solutions. The summary report from the inaugural meeting, which was distributed to all meeting participants, provides matrices that list the vulnerabilities and strengths identified to date, as well as additional background and context.


Finally, Scott acknowledged that there are other resilience‐related activities being conducted by others. For example, the City & County of Honolulu Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency is in the process of completing a resilience plan for the island of Oʻahu; this plan will include a variety of recommendations related to community preparedness and infrastructure. The Koʻolaupoko community resilience initiative is intended to complement these other efforts and activities.



Following the introductory remarks, Linda Colburn and Alani Apio provided further detail regarding the proposed workshop process. Linda reminded the group that at the inaugural meeting, the strengths and vulnerabilities associated with the Koʻolaupoko community were identified for each of three categories – infrastructural, societal, and environmental features. For the purposes of this workshop, the facilitators will summarize the previous results for each of

the feature categories and will request input on substantive information that may have been omitted or needs refinement. Once the group is satisfied that the list for each feature category is reasonably complete, the facilitators will guide the participants through an exercise designed to sort the information, thereby focusing on those strengths and vulnerabilities that most warrant attention in the development of an action plan. This effort is intended to take the broad array of strengths and vulnerabilities that have been identified to date (including more than 80 features) and develop a more targeted list.

For this exercise, a total of 7 sticker dots per feature category will be given to each community member (red dots), and a representative of each critical infrastructure and emergency management, health and


safety agency (green dots). After the group has reviewed and refined the information for each feature category, these participants will be asked to place each of their sticker dots on those features that they feel should be the focus for development of action items. Alani explained that the total number of sticker dots given to each person was determined according to the total number of participants (based on a common guideline used for facilitation exercises) but noted that this approach may be adjusted based

on the group’s preference. He also provided the group with suggestions for basic principles that could be used to guide individual selection of the features warranting more attention, emphasizing that these principles are subject to input and agreement by the group. After a short discussion, the group agreed on the following guiding principles:

Feature was a major vulnerability or strength during previous disasters in Koʻolaupoko (e.g., ʻIwa, Iniki, etc.) and/or could reasonably be a major vulnerability or strength during a future disaster based on recent events in other similar locations (e.g., Puerto Rico, Marianas, etc.)
Feature is a vulnerability or strength that affects the broader community; addressing this feature would provide for the greater good within Koʻolaupoko
Addressing this feature would serve to protect human life and safety

Linda explained that once the group has placed all the sticker dots for a feature category, the distribution of those sticker dots will be evaluated. The intent of this effort will be to identify where the critical mass of interest lies in terms of focus for development of action items. In addition, it will indicate whether there is convergence (or divergence) of views between the community and institutional representatives (as different color sticker dots will be used for each group); this will inform where deeper dialogue may be needed to bring views into better alignment. For those features that are identified as warranting further attention, the future steps in the process will involve identifying action items, prioritizing those actions, and ranking them in terms of timeline for response (short‐term, long‐


term, and ongoing). Alani referenced a handout of a sample matrix that shows the anticipated end goal for this effort.

Linda noted that it is an imperfect process but emphasized that adjustments can be made as desired by the group. She also clarified that all input is being recorded and will be preserved in the summary report; therefore, even if a feature is not carried forward as part of the action plan, the relevant information will still be recorded and available for future use.


Based on the described process, the group reviewed the features listed in the matrices for the infrastructural and societal categories; information was added and refined based on input provided by the group. Using the sticker dot approach outlined above, community members, critical infrastructure owners and emergency management, health and safety agency representatives identified those features that they felt most warranted attention in the future development of action items. The results of this process were compiled into revised matrices, with the features assigned into three tiers (based on the number of sticker dots assigned to each); copies of the revised matrices for infrastructural and societal features are attached as reference documents at the end of this workshop summary. As there was not enough time for the group to address the environmental features, this discussion was deferred to the next workshop.



Scott thanked the group for their time and participation. He explained that a summary of the workshop will be provided via email. The next step in the process will be to complete the refinement and sorting of environmental features, then to identify potential action items for those features selected by the group as most warranting further attention. This effort will continue at the next workshop, which is planned for Monday, April 1, 2019 (8:00am ‐ 12:00pm) at Windward Community College