Tourism in Hawai‘i: Industry Views and Stakeholder Comparisons

Executive Summary

Tourism in Hawai‘i shapes the state’s economy, communities, and environment in ways that affect nearly every resident. While resident and visitor views are regularly measured through long-running Hawai‘i Tourism Authority (HTA) surveys, the perspectives of those who operate and invest in the industry are less visible, with the exception of a few regularly cited consultants or association heads.

This report addresses that gap. Drawing on confidential interviews with 19 senior executives in lodging, attractions, transportation, and wholesale tour operations, it examines how industry leaders see Hawai‘i’s visitor economy, its competitive position, and its governance. Resident and visitor survey data are included to provide context, highlight points of alignment, and draw contrasts with industry perspectives. All these perspectives are presented, without endorsement, to situate industry concerns alongside the well-documented views of residents and visitors.

Industry Views in Context
Although their priorities differ, there is agreement on several fundamentals among residents, visitors, and industry leaders. All see Hawai‘i’s public infrastructure as outdated, overcrowded, and in need of reinvestment. There is shared concern about workforce instability and the high cost of housing, which undermine service quality and competitiveness. All groups also affirm the central place of Native Hawaiian culture in Hawai‘i’s identity and support using visitor-generated revenues for visible community benefits such as park maintenance, cultural programs, and environmental stewardship.

Residents primarily focus on cost of living, environmental pressures, and cultural authenticity. Visitors weigh price against perceived value. And industry leaders emphasize competitive threats from other destinations, persistent labor shortages, high operating costs, and policy uncertainty that complicates long-term planning.

Key Differences in Priorities and Approach
The largest divergences emerge around the role of the HTA. Many industry leaders want a stronger marketing investment and point to large budget gaps with competitor destinations. Residents and many policymakers give greater emphasis on destination management and stewardship. Residents are more open to limits on visitor numbers, while industry leaders favor targeted site management that avoids reducing total visitor counts. Regenerative tourism is supported in principle by all groups, but industry leaders note low visitor awareness, inconsistent definitions, and a lack of clear operational guidance.

Three opportunities stand out:

• Integrate marketing and stewardship by attracting visitors whose interests align with Hawai‘i’s cultural, environmental, and community priorities, and by using the brand to reinforce on-the-ground improvements.
• Create a statewide framework for management of highly trafficked sites with standardized tools, capacity thresholds, and regular public reporting.
• Tie tourism revenues to measurable results through transparent reporting that connects spending to visible improvements in infrastructure, resource protection, and cultural programs.

Although public debate often frames tourism as a choice between promotion and impact mitigation, the core goals are widely shared: strong communities, protected cultural and natural resources, and a competitive visitor economy. Industry executives believe these goals can be achieved if governance is coordinated, funding is stable, and accountability is clear. By providing industry perspectives and comparing them with resident and visitor views, this report identifies both the common ground and the policy tradeoffs that can shape the future of tourism governance in Hawai‘i.

1. Introduction

Public debate about tourism in Hawai‘i is often cast in binary terms, either for or against the industry, yet the reality is far more complex. Hawai‘i’s visitor industry is shaped by the interplay of political, market, and operational forces, each reflected in the perspectives of residents, travelers, and industry executives. Understanding how these perspectives align or diverge is essential to developing governance strategies that sustain both community well-being and the state’s competitive position.

Since its creation in 1998, the Hawai‘i Tourism Authority (HTA) has evolved from a marketing-focused agency into a broader destination management role, guided by its 2020 – 2025 Strategic Plan and island-specific “Destination Management Action Plans” (DMAPs) to address visitor impacts and protect cultural and natural resources (HTA 2019, HTA 2020). Regenerative tourism, a central theme in these plans, seeks not only to limit harm but to actively restore environmental, cultural, social, and economic systems (Bellato and Pollock 2025; Tham and Sharma 2023; Sheldon 2021). In 2025, several new laws redefined the HTA’s authority—reducing its board to an advisory role, shifting executive authority to the Governor, and authorizing a statewide “green fee” expected to generate $100 million annually for environmental and stewardship projects (Honoré 2025).

Although it is too early to gauge the effects of these actions, public confidence in tourism governance remains limited in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the HTA’s Spring 2024 Resident Sentiment Survey, only 56% of residents said tourism brings more benefits than problems, and just 48% agreed it is being better managed on their island (DBEDT 2024). Common concerns include crowding, environmental degradation,visitor behavior, and rising prices.

Despite these tensions, tourism continues to anchor Hawai‘i’s economy, generating more than $20 billion in visitor spending in 2024 (DBEDT 2025). Yet many of the attributes that once set Hawai‘i apart—its natural beauty, brand recognition, and reputation for safety—no longer guarantee long-term competitiveness. The global tourism market is increasingly sophisticated, with destinations in the Caribbean, Mexico, Southeast Asia, and the continental United States offering high-quality experiences often at lower costs (Tourism Economics 2024). Hawai‘i also faces persistent structural constraints, including labor shortages, aging infrastructure, and a widening gap between visitor expectations and local capacity (HTA 2019). Although regenerative tourism has emerged as a promising framework for aligning economic, environmental, and community priorities, its definition and application remain uneven in Hawai‘i.

Addressing these challenges not only requires understanding public and visitor sentiment but also the perspectives of those who operate and invest in the industry. The HTA’s long-running resident sentiment and visitor satisfaction surveys provide robust measures of how the public and travelers view tourism’s benefits, costs, and impacts over time. By contrast, the perspectives of industry leaders, who make the operational and investment decisions shaping the visitor experience, are far less visible in the public domain. While umbrella organizations such as the Hawai‘i Lodging and Tourism Association and the Hawai‘i Hotel Alliance contribute to policy debates, the views of individual executives are rarely documented systematically.

This report addresses that gap through in-depth, confidential interviews (conducted virtually from February through June 2025) with 19 senior executives representing lodging, attractions, transportation, and wholesale tour operations across all four counties.  While aggregate resident and visitor surveys and individual executive interviews differ in scope and method, comparing them side by side provides a useful way to see where broad public attitudes align—or diverge—from the perspectives of those directly responsible for tourism operations and investment. The interview sample included nine lodging executives, five in transportation, four in attractions and activities, and one in wholesale tour operations, allowing us to capture perspectives across the industry’s major segments. Details on selection criteria and theme identification, and the interview guide are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B.

The report proceeds in four parts. Section 2 reviews long-running resident and visitor survey data, establishing a baseline for public and traveler priorities over time. Section 3 presents findings from confidential interviews with senior industry executives across lodging, attractions, transportation, and wholesale tour sectors, highlighting operational realities and investment concerns that are less visible in public data. Section 4 compares these three perspectives side-by-side, identifying where priorities converge, where they diverge, and the implications of those patterns for tourism governance. Section 5 distills governance opportunities and constraints, offering options for aligning marketing, stewardship, and community well-being.

2. Resident and Visitor Perspectives on Tourism

For decades, the HTA has tracked residents’ and travelers’ views of Hawai‘i tourism through its Resident Sentiment Survey and Visitor Satisfaction and Activity Survey (VSAT). These datasets are among the most comprehensive of their kind, offering a clear view of how tourism’s benefits, costs, and impacts are perceived over time. They are not presented here as new findings, but summarized as concise reference points for interpreting the less well-known industry perspectives that follow.

2.1. Resident Views

Resident attitudes toward tourism in Hawai‘i have undergone a notable transformation over the past two decades, reflecting changes in the industry, the number of annual visitors, and evolving community expectations. Figure 1 shows data from the HTA’s Resident Sentiment Surveys that track the share of residents agreeing with the statement “Tourism has brought more benefits than problems.”

In the early 2000s, agreement levels were consistently strong, exceeding 70 percent, but began to decline after 2010 as arrivals surged in the wake of the Great Recession. The COVID-19 pandemic did not reverse the trend. Even amid the steep decline in arrivals, positive sentiment toward tourism stayed low, a dynamic widely attributed to residents’ ability to enjoy beaches and trails without the presence of tourists. By Spring 2024, agreement had inched back up to 56 percent—higher than in the immediate post-pandemic period, but far from the broad consensus seen two decades earlier. Attitudes are far from uniform, with clear variation across islands and communities. In 2024, for example, residents of Lāna‘i and urban Honolulu were among the most likely to agree that tourism has brought more benefits than problems (73 percent and 63 percent, respectively), compared to just 34 percent in Wai‘anae (DBEDT 2024a).

More granular measures from the 2024 HTA Resident Sentiment Survey provide additional context. As Table 1 shows, nearly 80 percent of residents agree that tourism generates job opportunities and that it sustains local businesses.  Similarly, two-thirds feel that tourism provides shopping, dining, and entertainment opportunities they value.

Table 1. Resident Views on Tourism’s Benefits and Challenges

	% Agree
Economic and Social Benefits
Tourism generates job opportunities for residents	79%
Tourism supports local businesses	80%
Tourism provides valued shopping, dining, entertainment	68%
Cultural and Environmental Impacts
Authentic presentation of Hawaiian culture is important	86%
Tourism contributes to perpetuating Hawaiian culture	43%
Tourism helps fund stewardship of natural resources, parks, cultural sites	57%
Tourism improves/maintains natural resources in the community	46%
Aware of HTA stewardship initiatives	58%
Negative Impacts
Higher cost of living	75%
Environmental damage	70%
Disrespect for culture and ‘āina	69%
Overcrowding	65%
Source: DBEDT 2024a. Note that “agree” indicates a rating of 6 – 10 on a 10-point scale. Only residents who viewed tourism’s problems as greater than its benefits were asked about “Negative Impacts.”

Cultural and environmental measures present a more mixed picture. While 86 percent agree that authentic presentation of Native Hawaiian language and culture is important, only 43 percent believe tourism actively contributes to perpetuating it, a gap that points to skepticism about cultural programming. Similarly, while 57 percent say tourism helps fund stewardship of natural resources, parks, and cultural sites, less than half (46 percent) believe it improves or maintains those resources. Nevertheless, nearly six out of ten (58 percent) residents are aware that the HTA is working on destination stewardship initiatives (DBEDT 2024a).

When asked about tourism’s negative impacts, residents identify a persistent set of challenges. In 2024, 75 percent of those who thought tourism problems outweighed benefits cited higher cost of living as a problem, up from 73 percent in 2023, making it the most widely recognized tourism-related challenge. Environmental damage was named by 70 percent, down slightly from its 2023 peak of 75 percent. Concerns over disrespect for culture and ‘āina – an almost nonexistent concern in surveys 20 years ago and mentioned by just 22 percent in 2017 – have recently remained steady, at 69 percent across the last few  survey waves. Overcrowding, once a dominant complaint, fell from 74 percent in 2023 to 65 percent in 2024 (DBEDT 2024a). While this decline may suggest some success in dispersing visitors or managing peak congestion, it has not produced a broader rebound in overall sentiment.

Among residents who did not express a favorable opinion of tourism in Hawai‘i, the most commonly cited actions that would improve their views are managing, controlling, or capping tourism (18 percent), educating tourists regarding the state’s land and people (14 percent), and addressing visitors’ lack of respect for locals, culture, or ‘āina (11 percent) (DBEDT 2024a). Regenerative tourism strategies, such as encouraging visitors to volunteer or give back during their visits, continue to receive strong public backing, with 70 percent of residents supporting this approach (DBEDT 2023b).

Public support for using tax revenues to manage the impacts of tourism on communities remains strong, with about two-thirds (65 percent) expressing agreement. Perceptions are more divided, however, when it comes to using tax revenue to actively encourage tourism, with 42 percent in support and 53 percent opposed (DBEDT 2024a).

Overall, HTA survey data portray a public that continues to recognize tourism’s economic contributions, particularly in employment and business support, but also remains deeply concerned about its distribution of benefits, its impact on the cost of living, and its effects on culture and the environment. The persistence of these attitudes—across economic cycles, visitor volume fluctuations, and even the unprecedented disruption of the pandemic suggests that resident sentiment—is shaped as much by governance choices and policy outcomes as by raw visitor numbers.

2.2. Visitor Views

Visitor sentiment toward Hawai‘i remains generally positive across major markets, but data from HTA’s VSAT survey reveal patterns that have implications for governance, investment, and destination management. The Hawai‘i brand continues to have strong appeal, with favorability ratings consistently in the 70–80% range in recent years (DBEDT 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2023).

Figure 2 presents trends in the share of visitors rating their Hawai‘i experience as “excellent” from 2012 – 2025. For the U.S. West, excellent ratings have generally risen over the past decade, from the low 82 percent range in 2012 to 89 percent in 2024, with only brief declines during the pandemic period. The U.S. East market shows consistently higher ratings, at roughly 90 percent in recent years. Canadian ratings have held steady in the mid-80 percent range. Japanese ratings, which were the lowest of the four markets in 2012, have shown the most dramatic improvement, climbing from the low 70 percent range to 86 percent in the most recent 2025 Q1 survey. Japanese ratings should, however, be interpreted with some caution. The number of Japanese visitors declined sharply in the post-pandemic years and remains slow to recover, with 2024 arrivals at approximately half the level of 2019. The most recent, higher ratings may indicate that the current mix of Japanese visitors skews toward travelers with a strong preference for Hawai‘i.

The VSAT survey also provides data on why visitors would be unlikely to return to the state. Cost remains the dominant deterrent for U.S. West visitors, who make up the majority of Hawai‘i’s arrivals and represent its largest source market. Among U.S. West visitors who report that they would be unlikely to return to the state, 57 percent cited Hawai‘i as “too expensive.” Concerns over “poor value” were also significant, reported by 29 percent of U.S. West respondents. Issues related to congestion and traffic (24 percent) remain persistent, while complaints about commercialization and overdevelopment (16 percent) have stayed relatively stable over time. Among international visitors who were unlikely to return, the leading concern for Japanese travelers (67 percent) in 2024 was that Hawai‘i is too expensive, likely influenced by an unfavorable exchange rate. Yet 62 percent of Canadian visitors and 55 percent of European visitors also said it was too expensive, showing that this concern is widespread among international travelers. The data indicate that while crowding and development concerns matter, rising prices and questions about value for money now play a more decisive role in shaping return intentions (DBEDT 2024c). 

While concerns about cost and value strongly influence visitors’ intentions to return, they do not preclude interest in experiences that align with destination management and regenerative tourism goals, especially when such opportunities are visible and accessible. Awareness of specific programs, however, remains limited. Nearly four out of five visitors from the U.S. (78 percent) and Canada (81 percent) reported being unfamiliar with the Mālama Hawai‘i campaign. Broader stewardship messaging fares better. Indeed, fewer than 20 percent of U.S. visitors reported being unfamiliar with general messages about caring for Hawai‘i’s culture, people, and environment (DBEDT 2024c). 

Interest in culture is nonetheless a meaningful factor in destination choice. A majority of U.S. visitors (58 percent) said Native Hawaiian culture at least somewhat influenced their decision to visit. Yet translating this interest into active engagement has been less successful. Participation in volunteer or give-back opportunities is limited, with roughly three-quarters of U.S. and Canadian visitors reporting they had not heard of such activities, and only 2 percent reporting participation (DBEDT 2025c). While these opportunities may not be a primary draw for most travelers, the low levels of awareness suggest that current offerings are either not widely promoted or not sufficiently aligned with visitor interests and itineraries.

Visitor perspectives reflect a deep appreciation for Hawai‘i’s natural beauty and cultural distinctiveness, yet this is tempered by concerns over cost and value. Many of these concerns, such as rising prices, crowding at popular sites, and the perceived quality of infrastructure, mirror issues residents identify as affecting their own quality of life. Sustained satisfaction scores suggest Hawai‘i continues to deliver on core visitor expectations, but maintaining high visitor ratings without addressing these shared pressures may not, on its own, secure long-term community or political support for tourism policy.

Overall, resident and visitor perspectives provide a valuable baseline for understanding tourism’s role in Hawai‘i, one shaped by both long-standing economic benefits and persistent concerns over costs, infrastructure quality, environmental stewardship, and cultural authenticity. Many of these same issues emerge in the views of industry leaders, though often filtered through the lens of operational constraints, market competition, and investment priorities.

3. Industry Perspectives

Across the interviews with industry executives, ten major themes emerged in response to questions about the challenges and future trajectory of Hawai‘i’s visitor industry. Some echo resident and visitor views, while others diverge in important ways. The following sections present these perspectives as reported, to be interpreted alongside survey evidence, rather than as prescriptive conclusions. While the emphasis varies by sector, the themes nonetheless intersect with concerns expressed by residents and visitors, offering a fuller view of where priorities converge and where they differ. Table 2 summarizes each theme and the key issues raised by executives.

Table 2. Top 10 Themes Across All Interviews

Theme	Key Concerns
Competitiveness	High concern over Hawaii’s price/value positioning and infrastructure decline
Government/Policy Dysfunction	Concerns about slow response, bureaucracy, legislative micro-management, and fragmentation
Labor Shortages	Aging workforce, lack of affordable housing, union constraints
Infrastructure Decay	Waikīkī beach erosion, parks, roads, and airports
Negative Resident Sentiment	Concerns over anti-tourism messaging and need for improved communication
Strategic Marketing Deficits	Weak commitment to marketing, HTA funding issues
Housing Affordability	Short Term Vacation Rentals (STRs) and second homes worsening local housing availability
Economic Diversification	Desire for reduced dependency on tourism sector for tax revenue
Destination Management	Mixed views: hotspot management OK, but concern over capping growth
Messaging and Branding	Misalignment between government messaging and tourism needs

The most widely shared concern was Hawai‘i’s declining competitiveness, driven by a growing perception that high costs are misaligned with the quality of the visitor experience. Labor shortages, particularly in lodging and activity sectors, compound this challenge, with executives citing an aging workforce, high living costs, and limited affordable housing as barriers to recruitment and retention.

Negative public perceptions of the industry were another recurring theme. Executives expressed frustration with what they viewed as one-sided portrayals of tourism’s impacts and argued for messaging that acknowledges both its benefits and burdens. Some feared that declining public trust in tourism governance is hindering collaboration between the industry and policymakers.

Many also stated that Hawai‘i’s long-term economic resilience cannot rely solely on tourism. While few expect it to be displaced as the leading sector, there was broad support for a more balanced economic strategy. Some noted that diversification could ease the fiscal pressures that fall disproportionately on tourism. With more revenue sources to draw from, they argued, the state could spread future costs and taxation more broadly rather than relying so heavily on the visitor industry.

To examine industry executives’ perspectives in greater depth, the following sections focus on core tensions shaping Hawai‘i’s visitor industry. These are not simply technical or operational challenges; they raise fundamental questions about how Hawai‘i positions itself as a destination, balances resident and visitor priorities, and manages tourism as part of a broader political and economic system.

3.1. Perceived Erosion of Hawai‘i’s Competitive Edge

By many market performance measures, Hawai‘i’s visitor industry remains strong. The lodging sector continues to anchor the state’s tourism economy, with a 2024 supply of 83,058 visitor units (DBEDT 2024b). In the second quarter of 2025, the statewide average hotel room rate was $375, with real visitor expenditures for the first quarter totaling $5.32 billion (DBEDT 2025e, UHERO 2025). June 2025 hotel occupancy stood at 74.3 percent, slightly below the prior year, yet Hawai‘i continued to lead all U.S. markets in both average daily rate and revenue per available room. Internationally, Maui, Hawai‘i Island, Kaua‘i, and O‘ahu all ranked among the top ten “sun and sea” destinations (DBEDT 2025e).

These figures suggest Hawai‘i still commands premium prices and relatively high per-visitor spending. Yet the modest growth in hotel supply, downward pressure on occupancy, and intensifying competition are fueling concern among industry executives that this position is not guaranteed. Many described Hawai‘i as falling behind other resort destinations, particularly those in Mexico, the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia, in delivering value for money. This was often framed as a failure to maintain the brand promise on which Hawai‘i’s tourism reputation has long rested.

Several respondents argued that Hawai‘i has been coasting on its historic reputation without sufficient reinvestment in the visitor experience. Infrastructure was a frequent complaint, with airports, roads, and beaches seen as outdated, crowded, or poorly maintained. Interviewees noted that these conditions detract from the premium image that the Hawai‘i brand is supposed to convey. As one respondent put it, “… we were always patting ourselves on the back about how great everything was, when it really wasn’t. We needed to be looking ten years out and saying ‘this is what’s working’ and ‘this is what’s not working’.” Additionally, some respondents noted that Hawai‘i lacks the coordinated experience and seamless visitor services offered elsewhere, making it difficult to justify the high cost of visiting the islands.

In the face of newer, flashier competitors, there was a shared sense among respondents across sectors that the future success of Hawai‘i tourism depends on developing unique experiences, importantly including Hawaiian cultural experiences. One attractions executive noted, “We have cultural practitioners on staff. … we’re really putting a strong focus on culture and, I’m hoping the industry is, too … and it looks like it is moving in that direction.”

Executives also cited inadequate marketing support as a competitive risk. One lodging executive put it this way: “It has been a challenge to get the legislature and people to understand the importance of marketing. When you look at other tourism destinations like Mexico and the Caribbean, they outspend us four to one in marketing. I’ve never been one that said we had to match that funding, but [we had] no funding for two years, which is practically what happened after COVID.”

Budget comparisons illustrate the gap. According to figures presented to the HTA, in 2025, Hawai‘i’s U.S. market contract totaled $14.4 million, far below the Dominican Republic’s $100 million annual marketing budget, Mexico’s $50 million for the U.S. market in 2021, and Jamaica’s $31 million, including $6.3 million dedicated to new market stimulation in major U.S. cities (HTA 2025). While industry leaders understandably view marketing investment as essential to sustaining competitiveness, residents, as discussed above, have shown mixed support for public spending on tourism promotion.

The Japan market, which has seen arrivals decline by half from its peak, is of particular concern to operators who have historically focused on Japanese visitors. While there are obvious factors contributing to the decline, including a weak yen and high Hawai‘i prices, there is a concern that deeper issues may be at play including shifting demographics. As one executive put it, “even if the exchange rate comes down to a more comfortable level, the market is not going to come back to the same … volume that we used to enjoy.” The changed environment, in his estimation, requires a new approach that can attract younger, first-time visitors who will become repeaters. The need to change course is underscored by the availability of competitive destinations for the Japanese. “There’s Korea, there’s Taiwan, there are other, closer, less expensive overseas destinations that people are going to.”

3.2. Reported Labor Shortages and Workforce Challenges

Labor shortages emerged as one of the most frequently cited and pressing concerns across the visitor industry. Executives described growing difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff, particularly in frontline and operations roles. While workforce instability is not a new problem, many indicated it had intensified in the post-pandemic period, becoming a serious threat to service quality and operational viability.

According to many executives, the state’s high cost of living, combined with limited housing near major visitor hubs, has discouraged longtime workers from staying in the industry and made it increasingly difficult to recruit new workers. One lodging executive remarked that “we’re losing a lot of good, local, talented people that are making a choice to move to other destinations” because they cannot afford to live in Hawai‘i. Reflecting on the concerns of his employees, the same hotel operator framed the problem in terms of basic livelihood: “Can I feed my family? Can I house my family? And is Hawai‘i the best place for me to do that?”

A key concern was the dynamic of increasing labor costs driven by upward pressure on wages due to union contracts, Hawai‘i’s cost-of-living realities, and the rollout of a higher minimum wage. Overall operating costs are seen as increasing at a higher rate than visitor spending.

“We can’t keep locals here. I mean, who’s going to work in our hotels? Who is going to welcome our visitors and welcome our guests? — Lodging Executive

Even while paying competitive wages, operators expressed concern about the difficulty of recruiting and retaining qualified workers due to the cost of living in Hawai‘i and, especially, housing costs. Smaller operators, in particular, felt disadvantaged in attracting and retaining qualified employees because they are competing for labor against larger operators who can more easily afford higher wages and better benefits. However, smaller operators also see themselves as more nimble than the bigger players and use that nimbleness to their advantage in creating profitable niches.

Several interviewees noted that the industry’s aging workforce compounds these issues. As experienced employees retire, younger workers are not entering the sector in sufficient numbers to replace them. Others cited specific challenges in retaining local youth, who are unable to find affordable housing or are uninterested in what they see as low-prestige jobs.

Housing emerged repeatedly as a central constraint. Executives shared examples of on-site dormitories being retrofitted to house staff, reliance on H-2B workers living with extended family, and the growing need to subsidize housing just to keep operations staffed.^[1]  One hotel operator noted that “we’ve just recently converted some of our least desirable rooms to dorm rooms,” emphasizing how makeshift these solutions have become.

These challenges are not confined to hotels. An attractions executive on a Neighbor Island described the situation bluntly: “Hawai‘i’s high cost of living is becoming more and more of a serious issue… That’s why we’re losing so many good people… So we do have a labor shortage, but now we’ve got a housing crisis.” Another lodging executive warned that the combination of luxury development and housing displacement was undermining both the workforce and community trust: “We’re putting up million-dollar condos, and the voice of the local says we don’t have a place to live… The inequity that continues to be put on the shoulders of tourism is a problem.”

Underlying these concerns is a sense that hospitality work is undervalued in both public and educational discourse. Some executives emphasized the need to shift perceptions of tourism as a viable and dignified career. As one hotel operator put it, “There’s a misconception that the industry is not a legitimate career to be able to live and work and buy a house and raise your family.” Others noted that high schools often lack the resources or institutional support to sustain hospitality academies.

According to the executives we interviewed, the result is a persistent labor crisis that undermines service delivery and the overall visitor experience. Without stable staffing, they said, businesses cannot reliably meet guest expectations or deliver the level of service for which Hawai‘i is known. Industry leaders agreed that efforts to boost competitiveness will remain constrained unless state and county governments take more coordinated and serious action to address housing, workforce development, and the broader social infrastructure needed to support local labor.

3.3. Ambivalence Toward HTA and Its Destination Management Role

Views on the HTA were very mixed, often reflecting deep uncertainty about its current mandate.^[2] Some interviewees felt HTA has moved in a more thoughtful direction with its greater emphasis on destination management. Others said they wanted HTA to refocus on improving the product—the actual visitor experience—rather than simply refining marketing strategies.

However, many others questioned HTA’s capacity to deliver on any form of destination management, at least as a primary agency responsibility, and strongly preferred a renewed focus on marketing. Destination management advocates tend to see marketing as another tool for destination management—attracting desired low-impact visitors—but most interviewees did not make that conceptual connection, and tended to see marketing and management as separate and perhaps competing activities.

For example, one transportation executive said, “I read their mission statement, and it doesn’t make sense to me. What they want to do is they want to be everything for the community, but it doesn’t say that we want to be a world-class destination where we’re going to attract high spenders. How are you going to do that if you don’t have any plan?”

By contrast, as the section above showed, residents have generally expressed more support for HTA’s destination management and stewardship functions than for expanding its marketing role. This difference reflects a broader divergence in priorities. While the industry emphasizes competitiveness, residents tend to place greater weight on managing impacts and protecting cultural and environmental assets.

Several interviewees expressed confusion about what “destination management” entails or how HTA defines and implements it.^[3]  Most accepted the growing need for some more systematic approach to infrastructure improvements and rapid solutions to overcrowded tourism “hotspots,” but there was hesitation about HTA’s ability to perform these functions itself and/or its ability to motivate other government agencies to meet such needs. When interviewees mentioned successful Hawai‘i examples of overcrowded “hotspot” management—e.g., Diamond Head, Hā‘ena, Hanauma Bay—these were not things operated by the HTA, leading to questions about whether destination management should continue to be a part of HTA’s mission.

There was limited mention of, or familiarity with, HTA’s DMAPs. One person acknowledged never having read any of the DMAPs but still believed those plans lacked clear actionable goals. Another expressed belief in the general idea, but felt that a tourism agency such as HTA taking the lead—rather than communities themselves—makes those plans “automatically suspect.”

A number of executives thought HTA’s role has become deeply politicized and/or under-resourced by the Legislature, weakening its ability to carry out effective long-term planning. There was a sense that the Legislature had stepped back from its original agreement to grant HTA the political independence and guaranteed revenue stream that was central to the basic concept of a “tourism authority.” “They’ve got to sing for their supper every year and not know what their budget’s going to be,” said one executive. “I mean, I don’t know how you develop any long-range marketing plans in that kind of scenario.”

An attractions executive noted, “When we started the TAT [transient accommodations tax], my understanding was the majority of that money would go to fund the advertising and marketing of Hawai‘i. I don’t know where that changed, but if we were still following that guideline … we’d have plenty of money to market and promote Hawai‘i.”

On the internal “politicization” front, there was reference to infighting among factions on the Board of Directors. There was also a perception that HTA’s communication with the private sector had become less frequent and less productive in recent years—and a few people indicated a belief that the industry was under-represented on the existing Board.

Finally, there were concerns about overlapping responsibilities among HTA, DBEDT, and private organizations. This led to calls for a clearer tourism governance structure and more consistent policy leadership. “Give the destination management piece back to DLNR and form an [advisory] organization where we have a voice and a seat at the table, where we can help. But we need to get back to marketing the state appropriately, and it’s not going to get done under this current political climate,” said one lodging executive.

3.4. Frustration with State-Level Governance and Policy Fragmentation

Beyond HTA and related legislative issues, respondents repeatedly voiced dissatisfaction with State and county government, describing a policy landscape marked by fragmentation, inconsistency, and lack of vision. Several interviewees characterized tourism-related decision-making as disjointed and reactive, driven more by politics than strategy. They described a policymaking process that is overly bureaucratic and slow to respond to emerging issues.

While a few thought this was just typical of how governments operate, many expressed a more gut-level sense of frustration. As one transportation executive said, “What I’m saying is that the bureaucracy is very maddening—and the directors and the political leaders, they’re unbelievable! I don’t understand how they operate.”

Both State and county permitting processes were frequently described as slow, unpredictable, and opaque. Others felt regulations were overly restrictive. “We see wedding couples being banned from entering beaches with commercial vehicles.” Several business leaders shared examples of lengthy delays and unclear guidance that discouraged reinvestment and stalled improvements to tourism-related facilities. For businesses trying to meet rising visitor expectations, this lack of regulatory clarity was seen as a barrier to both innovation and routine maintenance. Several interviewees felt the current governor was accessible and aware of these issues, but longstanding problems seem “baked in” to the system.

Multiple participants noted that while tourism is a major part of Hawai‘i’s economy, the State lacks a clear and coherent tourism strategy. Coordination across agencies was also a concern, with some citing confusion, cross purposes, and/or duplication between departments and limited follow-through on tourism-relevant initiatives.

Several respondents talked about the need to set up some new structure that assured better inter-agency communication and collaboration, especially to deal with overtourism and destination management issues linked to natural resources or culture. “It has to be something like HTA, something from the government, that kind of looks at this and then manages all that—the infrastructure, at parks, the restrooms in the park, the airport, the activities which should be designated,” said one lodging executive.

The regulatory environment was seen as not only slow but also as unnecessarily burdensome, and several executives expressed a desire for streamlined permitting and better interagency cooperation. A common complaint was that industry operators were not adequately consulted or engaged before major policy decisions were made.

Although many visitor industry leaders are longtime residents, there was a sense that the industry’s needs are seen as something separate from—and competing with—other types of community needs, and that negative resident attitudes often translate into government indifference to industry concerns. As an attractions executive commented, “I think there’s barriers [to State agency focus on tourism infrastructure concerns]. I don’t think it’s, you know, where they’re focused. They’re focused on their local communities.“

And in the eyes of interviewees, the bottom line was insufficient funding not just for marketing, but also for tourism infrastructure and services. A lodging executive summarized that feeling: “The biggest thing the State could do to support tourism better? More money! … If most of your tax revenue is coming from tourism, what are we doing to put money back into that tourism standpoint?” Put another way, one respondent even suggested that the government was being “extractive” of visitors and the visitor industry, taking dollars from them and “misappropriating” them by not reinvesting them to maintain the destination. 

3.5. Limited Enthusiasm but Openness Toward Regenerative Tourism

Comments about regenerative tourism somewhat paralleled the previously noted attitudes toward destination management, but with perhaps even more sense of concern over practical implications. While many visitor industry leaders expressed conceptual support for regenerative tourism, especially when framed around stewardship, cultural respect, and community engagement, most voiced skepticism about its operational meaning and practical value. The phrase itself was frequently described as vague, aspirational, and poorly communicated. As one hotel executive put it, “We talk about regenerative tourism a lot, right? That comes from HTA…This is our new vision…And the hotels are like, so what are we supposed to be doing?” In the absence of clear expectations, many felt unprepared to implement regenerative tourism in a meaningful way.

Even those who attempted to integrate regenerative practices described limited results. One attractions executive shared an example of a visitor program that initially showed promise but ultimately failed to gain traction: “We’ve tried to promote more regenerative tourism…[and] part of the tour, was to do a little bit of a give back, whether it’s cleaning up around an area or weeding or whatever.… And they seemed to be doing okay for a while, and then it just kind of completely lost interest.” For many operators, this confirmed suspicions that the concept may not have a strong market pull, especially among mainstream visitors.

That perceived disconnect between philosophy and feasibility surfaced in multiple interviews. As one lodging executive observed, most visitors continue to prioritize traditional travel motivations like “sun, sand, and safety,” with only limited interest in cultural or environmental engagement. “I think it resonates with a very, very small audience,” the executive concluded. “We’re better off investing in destination management… and turning our marketing back to core historical tourism marketing.”

Executives acknowledged that visitor preferences are evolving and that what might be termed “purposeful travel” could be a growth segment. Yet this evolution has not translated into clear business models. Many worried that regenerative tourism, while well-intentioned, could become a vehicle for additional regulation or unrealistic expectations of the industry. As one hotel executive noted, the ambiguity can make operators feel confused and frustrated: “They ask me: can you tell me about how you’re doing regenerative tourism at your hotel? And I’m like: Well, I don’t really know what it is… because no one’s ever talked to me [about it].”

Some expressed concern that the current messaging around regenerative tourism may inadvertently alienate visitors or make them feel unwelcome. One lodging executive worried it might come across as saying, “we only want you to come if you’re planning to do work for us, if you’re planning to volunteer.” For the Japanese, whom one operator characterized as “generally very mālama,” the current messaging may imply that “it may not be time for us to go.”

Yet available data complicates this view. HTA’s preliminary analysis of its Mālama Hawai‘i campaign, a series of carefully produced videos highlighting the deep connection between Hawai‘i’s people, found that likelihood to visit Hawai‘i increased by 14 percentage points among viewers. The effect was particularly strong among “sustainers,” those already planning to visit, suggesting that stewardship-oriented messaging can deepen commitment and potentially influence trip planning (HTA 2024). While this evidence does not indicate that regenerative tourism will replace traditional motivations for travel, it suggests that well-crafted, culturally grounded campaigns can appeal to a meaningful subset of travelers.

Overall, business leaders were broadly supportive of efforts to give back to local communities, protect cultural spaces, and foster environmental responsibility, but they emphasized that success requires coordinated planning, practical tools, and a shared understanding of what regenerative tourism actually entails. In their view, regenerative tourism will only move beyond slogan status if State agencies provide clearer direction, work collaboratively with communities and operators, and define tangible outcomes. Without this, the industry’s openness to new tourism paradigms may be undercut by confusion and disengagement.

3.6. Desire for Better Integration with Local Communities

Executives were acutely aware of growing public frustration with the tourism industry. Several acknowledged that tensions with residents have intensified and that more needs to be done to repair the relationship. While some pointed to successful partnerships, such as community-based programs or cultural training initiatives, most felt these efforts were limited in scale and visibility.

Different interviewees saw different root causes for the resident-tourism tensions—from housing pressures (often associated with short-term rentals) to traffic to intrusions in neighborhoods and recreational areas or simply to inadequate resident appreciation of economic benefits.

“Well, you know, when it comes down to it, the major thing is probably traffic, following crowding at the beach and cost of housing” said an attractions executive. But a transportation executive noted: “We did an internal study a couple years ago on overtourism and some of the pain points there, and a lot of it ended up being just friction between residents and visitors in terms of trail access or parking.”

A few people also mentioned the impact of pandemic-era empty beaches as exacerbating resident resistance to sharing “local spaces” with visitors. “All of a sudden, we saw an ocean with only locals. We saw a community with no rental cars in it. We saw stores, we saw restaurants that didn’t have that visitor component, and we all fell in love with it,” said one lodging executive.

There was consistent and general support for education campaigns that help residents better understand the economic role of tourism, including how tax revenues support public services and how residents benefit from infrastructure and services funded by visitor spending. As one lodging executive explained, “I think the tourism industry has done a poor job of conveying the benefits that it provides, using the examples that you’re paying less for things, or you’re taxed less because of tourism spreading the tax base.” Yet complicating this view, survey data indicate that residents already recognize tourism’s economic contributions to jobs and local businesses. What they seem to question is whether those benefits are distributed fairly and whether revenues are visibly reinvested in community priorities.

Several industry leaders expressed concern that visitors are beginning to feel less welcomed by Hawai‘i residents. Although HTA’s VSAT surveys show that most travelers still report very positive experiences, executives pointed to a rise in negative messaging, particularly on social media and in public commentary, that may be shaping perceptions before visitors even arrive (DBEDT 2025c). Some described a growing sense of tension, where guests are unsure of their place or feel judged for simply choosing to vacation in the islands.

These concerns were not typically framed as opposition to community concerns or calls for reform. Rather, they reflected a belief that the public narrative around tourism has become increasingly unbalanced. Executives acknowledged the need for more sustainable and equitable tourism practices, but they also argued that the economic and social benefits of the industry are often overlooked or dismissed. In their view, a more constructive and inclusive conversation is needed, one that recognizes the real challenges tourism creates but also affirms the value it provides.

Several leaders called on State and county officials to play a more active role in shaping that conversation. They urged elected officials and agency leaders to help clarify the role tourism plays in Hawai‘i’s economy and to speak more openly about the many residents whose livelihoods depend on the industry. Without stronger leadership and more consistent messaging, they warned that the gap between visitors and local communities may continue to widen, with consequences for both public trust and long-term economic stability. At the same time, there was a feeling that the industry itself needs to more systematically appreciate resident issues as well as tell its “economic benefits” story to affected communities.

3.7. Expressed Need for Product Improvement and Reinvestment

There was a particular focus on aging infrastructure, as well as associated regulatory inefficiencies, as major obstacles to Hawai‘i’s long-term competitiveness. From crowded airports to deteriorating roadways and poorly maintained public restrooms, the condition of basic facilities was a recurring source of frustration. Interviewees emphasized that these issues are not just minor inconveniences. They shape the first and last impressions visitors have of the islands and reflect the overall quality of the destination.

Respondents also noted the aging infrastructure of Hawai‘i’s visitor plant, citing Ka‘anapali, which was built as a master-planned resort approximately 40 years ago. The amenities and standards of the 1970s and 1980s aren’t seen as attractive in satisfying the desires of twenty-first century travelers, especially for younger demographics. Despite its aging infrastructure, Hawai‘i’s has historically maintained its competitive positioning because of its globally recognized reputation for hospitality and aloha. This intangible edge, however, is seen by some to be at risk because of staffing challenges and an erosion of a welcoming attitude among residents. One respondent characterized this attitude as coming across as “what are you going to give back to me,” rather than one of welcome.

Regaining that competitive edge was seen as requiring a strong commitment to experiences rather than tangible amenities. As one hotel executive put it: “It is less about what they can touch and what they can see, and more about what they can feel and how they feel.” Similarly, a continued emphasis on cultural and experiential positioning for the destination was cited as a way to address Hawai‘i’s competitiveness challenges. “People wanting to have a deeper, richer experience during their visit to the islands, beyond just laying by the pool, laying by the beach, … but to the degree there is tourism product developed that will allow for a greater variety to the experience, I bet that will have an influence on the popularity of Hawai‘i.”

3.8. Desire for a Stronger Industry Voice in Policy

A recurring theme across interviews was the tourism industry’s limited influence in policymaking and its frustration with what many viewed as top-down, reactive governance. Executives expressed a desire for more formal and sustained channels through which their input could shape tourism policy. While some acknowledged that the industry’s lack of cohesion contributes to its marginalization, others pointed to the structural dynamics of policymaking and the diminishing presence of local ownership as barriers to influence.

Several emphasized that the political climate can shift quickly, leaving businesses uncertain about future rules or priorities. Others noted that public narratives about tourism, particularly those focused on its negative externalities, have begun to dominate policy discussions, sometimes at the expense of more balanced or pragmatic approaches. While interviewees understood the concerns behind this shift, many felt that one-sided narratives were beginning to dominate policymaking discussions.

“I don’t think our key stakeholders in the industry have done a good enough job consistently and loudly explaining the benefits of the industry, not just to the residents, but to our own hosts, as well as to the Lege [State Legislature]…I think some of that is the nature of our ownership groups, many of them not particularly involved politically and reticent to be in the headlines. What’s the old expression, the spouting whale gets harpooned? I think there’s a sensitivity from the industry side that, hey, we don’t want to be out in front of things as much as maybe we could.” — Lodging Executive

Some executives described the situation as worsening over time. An attractions executive pointed to the erosion of local ownership as a key factor: “Back in the day, many of the hotel chains…were locally owned. Now, I’m not sure I can think of any hotels or hotel chains that are owned locally…they’re all owned by gigantic real estate investment funds out of New York and whatnot.” This distance between ownership and local concerns, several argued, makes political engagement more difficult and reduces accountability to the community.

Others identified structural and political obstacles that limit influence even when the industry is united. One lodging executive noted that “the Lege [State Legislature]…is going to be fairly short-sighted,” given election cycles and shifting priorities. He also argued that HTA is “not representative of the tourism industry at all,” and lamented the failure to educate newer lawmakers: “A lot of them can’t even quote what the taxes are…there’s a huge lack of education amongst newer legislators about what the tourism industry is.” Yet he also blamed the industry for its lack of engagement, adding, “Now, for the most part, everybody [in tourism] reports to somebody, and when you report to somebody…you’re not motivated to stick your neck out.”

While frustration was the dominant tone, a few executives expressed cautious optimism. One hotel executive felt the industry could have a stronger voice, but acknowledged the industry’s own responsibility: “I think we have a voice. I’m not sure we always use the voice…We tend to use the fact that we’re always busy…we don’t do as effective a job as perhaps some other [industries] out there.”

This sense of unrealized potential was echoed by a lodging executive, who emphasized the need to reframe the conversation: “I think it’s more…having a voice that speaks more positively about what the industry generates and does for the community at large.” He noted that most residents and policymakers focus only on HTA’s portion of the TAT, ignoring the broader revenue implications: “Nobody talks about what happens with the other 90% of the TAT and how is that put to work for the community.…We’re just not appreciating the income source enough, and we’re not giving it recognition for what it does for the community.”

In general, there was a strong consensus that tourism policy in Hawai‘i would benefit from more consistent engagement with industry leaders not just during crises or budget debates, but through formal, ongoing consultation and clearer public messaging about tourism’s role in the state economy.

4. Alignment and Divergence of Stakeholder Views

Understanding where residents, visitors, and industry leaders align—and where they diverge—matters because these patterns shape the feasibility of governance reforms. This section shifts from documenting executive perspectives to comparing them directly with resident and visitor views by showing where priorities converge and where governance must navigate competing definitions of success. Alignment points represent potential consensus, while divergences signal where governance must manage tradeoffs between markets, communities, and resources. Table 3 below distills these patterns, grouping them into areas of alignment and divergence.

Table 3. Areas of Alignment and Divergence Among Industry Leaders, Residents, and Visitors

Alignment	Divergence
Infrastructure and Resource Stewardship: All groups see infrastructure as outdated or overcrowded and support investments in site management and maintenance.	Role of HTA: Industry prioritizes a stronger marketing focus; residents and many policymakers emphasize destination management.
Workforce and Housing Constraints: Shared concern that housing costs and labor shortages undermine service quality and competitiveness.	Visitor Numbers vs. Place Management: Residents more open to limiting arrivals; industry prefers targeted site controls. Long-term decline in positive sentiment suggests concerns extend beyond sheer volume.
Cultural Authenticity: Agreement that Native Hawaiian culture is central, though residents see a gap between its importance and its representation.	Messaging vs. Tangible Change: Industry calls for stronger emphasis on benefits; residents want visible impact reductions; visitors focus on value for money.
Reinvestment of Visitor Revenues: Broad support for directing tourism revenues to parks, beaches, and cultural programs.	Regenerative Tourism: Agreement on principles but uncertainty over definitions, implementation, and visitor engagement.

4.1 Areas of Alignment

Infrastructure and resource stewardship. Concerns about the condition and capacity of Hawai‘i’s public infrastructure are widespread. Industry leaders describe airports, roads, parks, and beaches as outdated, crowded, or poorly maintained, eroding Hawai‘i’s premium image and competitiveness.  Residents and visitors focus on the accessibility and upkeep of public sites—parks, beaches, trails—while industry leaders frame the same issue in terms of competitiveness and brand image. This alignment reflects a shared recognition that place quality underpins destination appeal. Policy opportunity lies in directing tourism revenues toward highly visible, place-based improvements in high-use areas, where benefits are both tangible to residents and noticeable to visitors.

Workforce and housing constraints. Residents and industry leaders both view labor shortages and housing costs as urgent and interconnected. Residents see housing affordability as a community-wide challenge exacerbated by tourism, while industry leaders treat it as an operational constraint that limits service quality and competitiveness. Both acknowledge the role of short-term rentals in constraining supply. Addressing these issues will require integrating tourism workforce needs into broader housing, transportation, and labor policy rather than treating them in isolation. For industry leaders, these are primarily workforce supply issues, while for residents they represent deeper questions of equity and livability.

Cultural authenticity as a core asset. There is broad agreement that Native Hawaiian culture holds a central place in Hawai‘i’s identity and should be treated with respect in tourism. Industry leaders cite growing investment in cultural practitioners and programming; residents overwhelmingly value authentic representation but remain skeptical that tourism actively perpetuates it. Visitors report cultural heritage as a secondary, though meaningful, factor in their decision to visit. Closing this perception gap will require co-created programming, consistent standards, and sustained investment in cultural training across the sector.

Reinvestment of visitor revenues. Residents and industry leaders broadly support directing visitor-generated revenues toward parks, beaches, cultural programs, and other visible community benefits. Residents’ support is strongly linked to transparent allocation and demonstrable results, while industry leaders emphasize reinvestment as essential to maintaining the assets that draw visitors. Mechanisms like the new green fee align with these preferences but will require clear governance and reporting to maintain trust.

4.2. Areas of Divergence

The role of the Hawai‘i Tourism Authority.  Industry leaders are divided on HTA’s destination management mandate, with many preferring a return to its original marketing focus, often citing unfamiliarity with the Destination Management Action Plans and competitive budget disparities. Furthermore, many in the industry do not see how HTA’s current activities connect to core business concerns. Residents are generally more supportive of a stewardship-oriented role, seeing it as necessary for addressing resource pressures. This divergence reflects not only disagreement over marketing versus management, but also contrasting views of what tourism governance should ultimately prioritize: competitiveness in global markets or stewardship of local resources. HTA has been trying a “both/and” approach that many industry interviewees felt was trying to be “all things to all people.” For example, they tended to see destination stewardship as the appropriate function of DLNR. And they had a strong concern that “responsible tourism” messaging risked making visitors feel unwelcome.

Managing visitor numbers versus managing places. Residents are more open to capping total arrivals, a view shaped partly by pandemic-era experiences of less crowded destinations. Industry leaders prefer targeted, site-specific measures—reservation systems, time-of-day pricing, and other tools—that accommodate overall capacity while addressing hotspots. These positions reflect different risk tolerances: residents prioritize rapid relief, while industry seeks to avoid economic volatility. Effective hotspot management could serve as a middle ground, provided it delivers visible results.

Messaging and the visitor experience. Industry leaders want more assertive promotion of tourism’s economic benefits to counter negative perceptions. Residents are less swayed by messaging and place greater weight on concrete improvements in housing, congestion, and visitor behavior. Visitors, for their part, are most influenced by cost and value; in 2024, for example, 57 percent of U.S. West respondents cited cost as a deterrent to returning, while 29 percent cited poor value. Stewardship campaigns have limited reach at this point.

Operationalizing regenerative tourism. While all groups endorse regenerative tourism in principle, they operate with different definitions and expectations. Residents often view it as resource protection and cultural integrity; industry leaders support the concept but are unclear on operational requirements and wary of regulatory burdens; visitors have low awareness and minimal participation. Without clearer definitions and shared benchmarks, regenerative tourism risks being perceived by industry as a slogan and by residents as an unmet promise.

5. Governance Implications

The patterns of agreement and disagreement among residents, visitors, and industry leaders explain why governance of Hawai‘i’s tourism system remains both politically sensitive and operationally difficult. Fragmented authority, shifting legislative priorities, and the absence of stable, long-term policy direction are compounded by differences in how stakeholders define problems, what tools they favor, and the standards they use to judge success.

Bridging competing priorities. Infrastructure quality, workforce stability, housing pressures, and cultural authenticity are shared priorities with broad political legitimacy. They provide a foundation for consensus-based action plans with measurable, public benchmarks. By contrast, marketing, visitor volume management, and regenerative tourism remain contested terrain. Industry leaders prioritize larger marketing budgets to sustain competitiveness, while residents and many policymakers emphasize destination management and impact mitigation.

These goals need not be at odds. Destination stewardship integrates marketing and management by targeting visitors whose interests align with Hawai‘i’s cultural, environmental, and community priorities, and by using the brand to reinforce on-the-ground improvements. Marketing can become a tool for stewardship by shaping visitor expectations, promoting responsible behavior, and driving demand for experiences that sustain resources and culture. In turn, effective management and visible improvements enhance the brand’s appeal.

Rather than a rigid two-track system, HTA could adopt a linked mandate with distinct budget lines and performance metrics for branding and stewardship, but a shared strategic plan that aligns both toward the same measurable outcomes. Multi-year, insulated funding for each function, coupled with transparent reporting on how marketing contributes to stewardship goals, may reduce politicization while ensuring accountability.

From ad hoc measures to coordinated policy. Residents and industry leaders both support place-based management tools, yet current efforts remain fragmented. Reservation systems, site fees, and time-of-day controls operate as isolated pilots by the Department of Land and Natural Resources, counties, or community groups, with uneven results. Without a statewide framework for high-use site management, implementation will remain patchy. Legislative action to define HTA’s role in coordinating interagency responsibilities could build on successful pilots at Diamond Head, Hā‘ena, and Hanauma Bay. A statewide framework with standardized tools, clear capacity thresholds, and regular public reporting could deliver the visible improvements residents expect while maintaining industry competitiveness.

Aligning funding with outcomes. Support for reinvesting tourism revenues in stewardship, site maintenance, and community benefits is strong across stakeholders, but trust hinges on transparency and impact. Years of diverting TAT into general funds have weakened the perceived link between tourism income and local benefits, eroding both resident confidence and industry backing for new revenue measures. The new 0.75-point TAT increase, projected to generate $100 million annually for climate resilience and resource protection, presents an opportunity to restore that link.  A public-facing dashboard that lists allocations, milestones, and before-and-after results would help ensure new funding translates into visible improvements.

Closing the feedback loop. Low visitor awareness of stewardship programs indicates a misalignment between program design, marketing, and delivery. HTA has already launched a Mālama Hawai‘i volunteer-matching dashboard with embedded metrics, but awareness among core U.S./Canada markets remains limited. Governance that links marketing to coincide with real service or site improvements would shift messaging from promotion to credibility-building and narrow perception gaps among visitors, residents, and industry.

Sustaining cultural authenticity. There is broad agreement on the centrality of Native Hawaiian culture. HTA already partners with cultural practitioners via grant programs (e.g., Kūkulu Ola; the Ho‘okipa Malihini Initiative). The next step is to embed cultural practice and content standards into relevant permits and HTA-funded contracts and to measure compliance. This would convert a shared aspiration into a measurable performance dimension and a competitive advantage, while respecting that cultural authority rests with practitioners and community organizations rather than marketing vendors.

The directions suggested here are potential pathways rather than fixed solutions. Moving from broad agreement to meaningful reform will require negotiation, experimentation, and leadership across government, industry, and communities. Recognizing both the common ground and the tradeoffs is an essential first step toward a more durable system of tourism governance.

6. Conclusion

Debate over Hawai‘i tourism is often framed as a choice between promotion and mitigation. In practice, residents, visitors, and industry leaders share core priorities: repairing infrastructure, stabilizing the workforce and housing, respectfully featuring Native Hawaiian culture, and visibly reinvesting tourism revenues. Most differences on HTA’s mandate, visitor caps versus site management, and regenerative tourism reflect disagreements over tools and governance rather than end goals.

This report compares perspectives that too often circulate separately—industry, residents, and visitors—to clarify both common ground and sources of conflict. By situating executive views alongside long-running survey evidence, the aim is to provide a clearer basis for informed debate.

Turning shared priorities into results will require stronger governance. Fragmented authority, unstable funding, and shifting legislative direction have produced short-lived initiatives instead of a coherent system. Recent changes to HTA’s role, the selection of a new HTA board, and expanded use of place-based management create an opportunity to realign policy if supported by clear statutory roles, stable funding, and processes that translate community priorities into site-level action.

Messaging cannot substitute for delivery. Visitors remain satisfied but are sensitive to cost and value. Residents judge tourism by visible improvements to natural resources and better site management. Industry leaders are willing to support stewardship when expectations are clear and benefits tangible.

Effective governance will require balancing measures that sustain Hawai‘i’s competitive position with those that directly advance community well-being. Stable funding and coordinated site management can support both goals, but only if paired with transparent reporting and clear accountability to residents as well as industry stakeholders. Hawai‘i is entering a period of unusual openness to rethinking how tourism is governed, creating a narrow window to test new models that integrate marketing, stewardship, and community priorities before institutional routines take hold. With aligned roles, resources, and accountability, Hawai‘i can move past zero-sum debates toward a robust tourism governance model that sustains communities, culture, and the visitor experience.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Steven Bond-Smith and Jim Mak for helpful feedback.

References

Bellato, L., & Pollock, A. (2025). Regenerative tourism: A state‑of‑the‑art review. Tourism Geographies, 27(3–4), 558–567.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2023a). 2023 Annual Visitor Research Report. State of Hawai‘i.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2023b, July). Resident Sentiment Survey – Spring 2023. State of Hawai‘i.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2024a, July). Resident Sentiment Survey – Spring 2024. State of Hawai‘i.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2024b). 2024 Visitor Plant Inventory. State of Hawai‘i.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2024c). Visitor Satisfaction and Activity Study: Annual Report. State of Hawai‘i.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2025a, January). Visitor Industry Continued Improvement in December 2024. State of Hawai‘i.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2025b). Vision Insights Destination Brand Health Trends. State of Hawai‘i.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2025c). Visitor Satisfaction Study Quarter 1, 2025. State of Hawai‘i.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2025d). Hawai‘i Timeshare Quarterly January–March 2025. State of Hawai‘i.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2025e). June 2025 Hawai‘i Hotel Performance Report. State of Hawai‘i.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2025f). June 2025 Hawai‘i Vacation Rental Performance Report. State of Hawai‘i.

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. (2025g). DBEDT Quarterly Tourism Forecast. State of Hawai‘i.

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. (2019). Strategic Plan, 2020–2025.

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. (2020). Destination Management Action Plans 2021–2023.

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. (2024, April 25). The People. The Place. The Hawaiian Islands.

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. (2025, February 27). Board of Directors meeting.

Honoré, Marcel. (2025, May 27). “Hawai‘i Makes History as First State to Charge Tourists to Save Environment,” Honolulu Civil Beat.

Sheldon, P. J. (2022). “The coming‑of‑age of tourism: Embracing new economic models.” Journal of Tourism Futures, 8(2), 200–207.

Tham, A., & Sharma, B. (2023). “Regenerative tourism: Opportunities and challenges.” Journal of Responsible Tourism Management, 3(1), 15–23.

Tourism Economics. (2024, November). WTM Global Travel Report.

UHERO (2025). “Total Real Visitor Expenditures,” UHERO Dashboard.

Appendix A: Structured Interview Methodology

The structured interviews were made up of 17 distinct sessions, each lasting approximately one hour. One of these interviews included three senior executives from the same business, resulting in a total of 19 individual participants across all interviews. To encourage candor, each interviewee was assured of total anonymity—their identities are not revealed in this report or elsewhere. Interviewees were selected on a nonrandom basis. Some were known to members of the research team, but most were “cold calls” using an emailed invitation explaining the research purpose and confidentiality parameters.

Criteria for inclusion in the study was simply that the person had significant responsibility for the operational success of a tourism private-sector business or group of businesses in Hawai‘i. Most interviewees held the highest leadership position within their organization, either as the owner or general manager of the business or as the senior executive overseeing the company’s operations in Hawai‘i. Heads of professional associations were not approached, as the focus here was on concerns of individual businesses. Also not interviewed were current members of the Hawai‘i Tourism Authority’s then-Board of Directors.

The final list of interviewees included executives from all four counties; both people relatively new to Hawai‘i and also (more typically) longtime business operators; and representatives of key industry sectors: attractions and activities (4), lodging (9), transportation (5), and wholesale package tours (1).

Given the busy schedules of invited interviews, the timeframe extended from early February through June2025. These interviews were conducted in accordance with University of Hawai‘i Institutional Review Board protocols for research involving human subjects. With the interviewees’ permission, all sessions were recorded and were transcribed by Otter.ai. The recordings were subsequently deleted and no information that could link the respondents to their comments was retained.

This approach does have several limitations: (1) these interviews may over-represent operators willing to participate in confidential interviews; (2) executives may emphasize issues that align with organizational interests (e.g., marketing budgets, permitting delays); (3) neighbor Island and small-operator perspectives may be underrepresented relative to O‘ahu and large properties. A final limitation is that the executive perspectives, drawn from individual interviews, are not directly comparable in form to aggregate resident and visitor survey results; our purpose is to juxtapose these distinct vantage points, not to treat them as equivalent datasets.

An 11-question interview guide (see Appendix B) was used as a common framework to ensure broad thematic coverage. However, given the complex and multifaceted nature of the visitor industry in Hawai‘i, the interviews were conversational in style, allowing participants to explore topics most relevant to their own experience. The guide served as a loose structure, with researchers adapting questions and follow-ups to accommodate the specific knowledge and perspectives of each executive.

Thematic analysis was conducted using an integrated approach that combined human qualitative judgment with computational assistance. Following initial rounds of review by the research team, the anonymized transcripts were uploaded to OpenAI’s ChatGPT (GPT-4o model) to assist with theme identification. All computationally suggested themes were reviewed, refined, and in some cases discarded based on the research team’s qualitative judgment and knowledge of the industry and local context.

Quotes presented in this report were lightly edited for clarity, including minor grammatical adjustments and the use of ellipses to indicate where portions of the original remarks have been omitted. In all cases, care was taken to preserve the meaning and tone of the interviewee’s comments.

Appendix B: Questions for Structured Interviews

1. What are the most pressing challenges you and your organization are facing right now?
   • Are these concerns being addressed … are they on someone’s radar?
2. Looking forward, what trends—either local or external—do you see shaping the future of tourism in Hawai‘i in the next five to ten years?
   • What are you anticipating … what are you adapting to?
3. Is Hawai‘i becoming more or less competitive among world class destinations? Why?
4. Is there anything the destination can do? What does it take to make Hawai‘i more competitive?
5. How do you think the relationship between the local community and the visitor industry has changed in recent years? What more could be done to balance tourism’s economic benefits with the desires of local residents?
6. Do you believe that your organization—and the overall industry—has a sufficient voice in the development of tourism plans and programs? Are there any specific changes you’d propose for better communication with policy makers?
7. In your opinion, what role should the Hawai‘i Tourism Authority (HTA) play in shaping the future of tourism in the state? Are there any changes you believe would improve how the HTA operates?
   • Who else drives tourism policy?
8. In addition to its role in marketing the destination, what else should HTA properly be focused on?
9. Apart from HTA, what do you think the state government could do to better support the visitor industry?
10. What is your understanding of what “destination management” means, and what changes would you recommend in how it is now being implemented in Hawai‘i?
11. What is your understanding of “regenerative tourism,” and how do you see this approach fitting into Hawai‘i’s tourism industry? Do you believe it can address some of the current challenges?
12. Are there any other thoughts about Hawai‘i’s visitor industry that you’d like to share?

---

^[1]  An H-2B visa allows employers to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary nonagricultural jobs.

^[2]  Most interviews were completed before the 2025 Legislature passed SB1571 to make HTA accountable to the Governor and DBEDT rather than its Board of Directors. Some were held before the late March announced resignations of the HTA Board Chair and Interim CEO. And all interviews were completed before Governor Josh Green requested the resignations of all HTA Board members in June 2025 and called for applications for a new, strictly advisory Board. Thus, these interview comments reflect attitudes toward the “old HTA,” but as of this writing, there remain many questions about the staffing, structure, and strategic directions of the “new HTA.” A new five-year HTA Strategic Plan effort began in June and is to be submitted in January 2026 to the next Legislature.

^[3]  HRS §201B-1 provides a multi-part definition of “destination management” activities the HTA is now legally mandated to carry out in each county, but few interviewees indicated any awareness of it.