UHPPC Hawaii Resident Assessment

LIFE UNDER
LOCKDOWN
HAWAI‘I RESIDENT ASSESSMENT
OF COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS
John M. Knox, PhD

President, John M. Knox
& Associates, Inc
Colin Moore, PhD

Director, University of
Hawai‘i Public Policy Center
Sherilyn Hayashida, PhD

Assistant Specialist, University
of Hawai‘i Public Policy Center
JULY 14, 2020
PUBLIC POLICY
CENTER
Knox, Moore, Hayashida i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the spring of 2020, Hawai‘i – like almost all U.S. states – imposed restrictions unprecedented in the
lifetimes of most of its citizens to battle the spread of the “novel Coronavirus” COVID-19. These
restrictions affected everyday resident behavior and great numbers of businesses. Tourism, the state’s
largest economic sector, was mostly shut down, along with many other businesses. Schools were
closed. Other than designated “essential workers,” residents were asked to stay at home if possible
and wear masks when they did go out.
This “lockdown” of the economy and of normal life was – when this project was first conceived in
May 2020 – apparently successful in containing the virus, as Hawai‘i had one of the nation’s lowest
morbidity and mortality rates. However, it also resulted in one of the nation’s highest unemployment
rates, as well as great disruption for individuals and families. Furthermore, as the survey
questionnaire was finalized in early June, new cases again began to increase as the local economy
re-opened.
The primary purpose of the resident survey described here was to learn about citizen responses to
these restrictions and to get a point-in-time sense of whether they would be willing to do the same
things again if (a) a clear and definite “second wave” materializes this summer/fall; or (b) yet another
type of pandemic occurs in the near future.
A secondary purpose of the survey was to get some preliminary sense of resident attitudes toward
the re-opening of tourism, the State’s single largest economic sector. The tourism questions were
designed, and all survey responses were received, prior to Governor David Ige’s June 24
announcement of changes to the current quarantine that would allow more overseas visitors to
vacation in Hawai‘i again as of August 1.
Knox, Moore, Hayashida ii
Below are some of the more critical survey findings:
A 54% majority still felt “A Little” or Asked to state in their own words what
“Very” Unsafe going out to places with Hawai‘i did “right” in addressing the
many other people. However, 61% pandemic, respondents most often
“Somewhat” trusted (and another 10% mentioned the overseas tourism
“Strongly” trusted) State and local shutdown/quarantine, cited by more than
governments to keep everyone safe. half of Hawai‘i residents. As for what
Hawaii might “have done better,” answers
The great majority (88%) thought various were more scattered, but two of the top
public health restrictions were “Mostly ones (at about 17% each) also involved
Reasonable” steps to protect public tourism – a desire for even more
health, and only 7% found them “Mostly restrictions on tourism and more
Unreasonable” violations of individual effective tourist quarantine enforcement.
rights. Given a list of 20 specific
restrictions, majorities thought all of If there is another wave (which 67%
them proved worthwhile for the thought probable), majorities would be
March-to-May period, but some items willing to repeat most of the same 20
garnered relatively larger minorities who restrictions. However, there was
said they were “Not Worth It” – significant reluctance to repeat the same
particularly restrictions affecting restrictions noted above – with majorities
non-COVID medical visits and not wanting the same approaches to
restrictions on public beaches, followed medical visits and public beaches, and
by closing shopping centers/businesses strong pluralities against the same
and the 14-day inter-island quarantine. approaches to closing shopping
centers/businesses and the inter-island
quarantine. Some people simply said,
“Don’t Do It Again,” but some said, “Do
It in a Different Way” – and the survey
gathered suggestions from sub-samples
about how these more problematic
restrictions could be done differently.
Knox, Moore, Hayashida iii
The survey explored selected household Some 81% of residents agreed they do not
impacts of the virus and its economic want “tourists coming to visit my
effects. Two-thirds of households with community right now,” and just 15%
children who had stayed home during disagreed. There is moderate trust
the pandemic thought at least one child (roughly one-third) in government and
had been negatively affected in terms of the travel industry working together to
personal development or education. re-open tourism safely, while there is less
Though the majority of respondents trust in the industry itself. About
themselves (90%) handled the restrictions one-third of residents do not trust either
well on an emotional level, about one in the state or travel industry to re-open
five households were reported as having tourism safely. If forced to choose
someone with “serious personal between “Just getting tourism going for
emotional problems” during the now” versus “Making big changes to the
lockdown. And more than one-third said nature of tourism first,” 69% opted for
a “possibly important medical issue” had big changes, 19% for getting tourism
been put off. going again right away, with the rest
undecided.
On the economic front, just 7% said
someone in the household had Demographic and other group
permanently lost their job, but 34% said a differences depended on the specific
household member had been temporarily question. A general pattern was that
laid off and 28% had worries about lower-income and other marginalized
someone being laid off or fired soon. groups were simultaneously the most
About 37% of households had someone negatively affected people, the most
who had filed for Unemployment willing to repeat all the same
Insurance benefits, with 31% having restrictions, and the least willing to see
someone already receiving them. tourism resume in its current form.
Knox, Moore, Hayashida iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank John M. Knox & Associates for providing survey research support. We are grateful to
Becki Ward and Ward Research for partnering with us to execute the survey, data collection, and
computerized analysis. We also thank Sharon Moriwaki for her 2018 financial gift to the UH Public
Policy Center to support the development of a survey research program. The time-sensitive nature of
this survey meant that we were only able to consult a small number of stakeholders about its design.
We are grateful to the following people for reviewing early questionnaire drafts and their helpful
suggestions during this rapidly changing time: Jeanne Schultz Afuvai, Carl Bonham, Jennifer Chun,
Makena Coffman, Philip Garboden, and Sumner LaCroix.
We also acknowledge other surveys conducted that might benefit researchers and policymakers
trying to gather relevant information on public opinion and/or reported impacts:
• Bank of Hawai‘i:
https://www.boh.com/siteassets/files/bohf_covid-19-in-hawaii_final-report_070120.pdf
• Civil Beat/Hawai‘i News Now:
https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/05/civil-beat-hnn-poll-stop-virus-even-if-economy-crumbles/
• National Disaster Preparedness Training Center and Pacific Urban Resilience Lab:
https://manoahawaiiss.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9oUXdWn2YHRu27H
• SMS Research:
https://www.smshawaii.com/posts/2020/05/14/sms-community-pulse-community-views-on-covid-19
https://www.smshawaii.com/posts/2020/06/25/sms-community-pulse-community-views-on-hawai-i-g
overnment-s-management-of-the-covid-19
• State of Hawai‘i, Department of Health:

https://health.hawaii.gov/news/files/2020/05/20-046-DOH-COVID-Survey-Results.pdf
• University of Hawai‘i Economic Research Organization:
https://uhero.hawaii.edu/covid-19s-uneven-impact-on-businesses-and-workers-results-from-a-uhero-c
hamber-of-commerce-hawaii-survey/
Knox, Moore, Hayashida P1
CONTENTS
1. Introduction P4-6
1.1 Purpose P5
1.2 Survey Methods P5-6
2. Perceived General Safety and Trust Levels P7-9
2.1 Overall Sense of Safety as of Mid-June 2020 P7-8
2.2 Trust in Government to Keep People Safe P8-9
3. Assessment of Overall Hawai‘i Safety Levels P10-12
3.1 Beliefs about How Hawai‘i Health Outcomes Compare to Other States P10
3.2 What Hawai‘i Did Right ... and What We Could Have Done Better P11-12
4. Assessment of Specific Hawai‘i Restrictions (March to May) P13-20
4.1 If Restrictions Generally “Reasonable” or Not P13-14
4.2 Reactions to Specific Restrictions P14-17
4.3 Overall Emotional Reaction to Restrictions P18
4.4 Restrictions People Found Particularly Hard P19-20
5. If There was Another Wave... P21-33
5.1 Likelihood of Another Wave P21-22
5.2 When Restrictions Should Again Be Imposed P22-23
5.3 Specific Restrictions That Should Be Done Again or Done Differently P24-26
5.4 How to Do Certain Things Differently Next Time P27-33
6. Household Impacts From Virus Or Restrictions P34-41
6.1 If Significant Household Financial Impact P34-35
6.2 Stay-at-Home Patterns and Changes P36
6.3 Children at Home and Any Negative Impacts P37
6.4 Selected Other Specific Household Impacts: Overall Results P38-39
6.5 Selected Other Specific Household Impacts: Demographic Differences P40-41
7. Overseas Tourism Re-Opening P42-49
7.1 If Visitors Welcome in Community P42-43
7.2 Requirements for Tourism Re-Opening P44-45
7.3 Trust in State and/or Travel Industry to Re-Open Safely P45-46
7.4 If Tourism Needs “Big Changes” or Not P47
7.5 Effect of Personal Economic Involvement on Tourism Opinions P48-49
8. Discussion and Conclusions P50-53
9. End Notes P54-55
10. APPENDIX: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE P56-66
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.1: Table on Key Demos, Representatives P6
TABLE 2.1: Selected Group Differences – Perceived Safety in Public P8
TABLE 2.2: Selected Group Differences – Low Trust in Govt. to Ensure Safety P9
TABLE 3.1: Most Common Answer Categories, “What We Did Right” P11
TABLE 3.2: Most Common Answer Categories, “What We Could Have Done Better” P12
TABLE 4.1: Selected Group Differences – Restrictions Seen as “Unreasonable” P14
TABLE 4.2: Selected Group Differences – Restrictions Seen as “Not Worth It” P16
TABLE 4.3: Selected Group Differences – Emotional Handling of Lockdown P18
TABLE 4.4: Restrictions Judged Hardest by Residents P19-20
TABEL 5.1: Suggested “Other Clear Signs” for Re-Imposing Restrictions P23
TABLE 5.2: Selected Group Differences – “Don’t Do Again” or “Do Differently” P26
TABLE 5.3: Top Things to Do Differently, and How Each of These Should Be Done Differently P28-29
TABLE 6.1: Selected Group Differences – Heavy Household Financial Impact P35
TABLE 6.2: Selected Group Differences – Not Staying Home During Lockdown P36
TABLE 6.3: Selected Group Differences – Various Household Impacts P40-41
TABLE 7.1: Selected Group Differences – Strongly Against Tourists Now P43
TABLE 7.2: Most Common Answer Categories, “More Requirements” Desired P45
TABLE 7.3: Selected Group Differences – Trust Neither State Nor Industry P46
TABLE 7.4: Selected Group Differences – Tourism Needs “Big Changes” First P47
TABLE 7.5: Tourism Opinions by Work Dependence on Tourists/Tourism P49

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1: Timeline of New Hawai‘i Cases, Including Survey Dates P4
FIGURE 2.1: Perceived Safety Going Out in Public as of Mid-June 2020 P6
FIGURE 2.2: Trust in State/Local Governments to Keep Public Safe P9
FIGURE 3.1: Beliefs About Hawai‘i Virus Rates Compared to Other States P10
FIGURE 4.1: Whether Restrictions Seen as Mostly Reasonable/Unreasonable P13
FIGURE 4.2: Restrictions Seen as Worth or Not Worth Doing in the March-to-May Period P17
FIGURE 4.3: How Well Respondents Were Handling Restrictions Emotionally P18
FIGURE 5.1: Beliefs About Whether Another Wave Is Likely P22
FIGURE 5.2: Best Indication That Restrictions Should Be Re-Imposed P22
FIGURE 5.3: Restrictions That Should Be Done, Not Done, or Done Differently “Next Time P25
FIGURE 6.1: If Household Thus Far Is Experiencing Significant Financial Distress P34
FIGURE 6.2: Percentages Staying Home (and Whether That Was Change) P36
FIGURE 6.3: If Children Stayed Home (and If Were Negatively Affected) P37
FIGURE 6.4: Selected Household Impacts from Virus or Restrictions P39
FIGURE 7.1: If Residents Do or Don’t Want Tourists in Communities Now P42
FIGURE 7.2: Whether Inter-Island Travel Rules Should Apply to Overseas Arrivals P44
FIGURE 7.3: Trust in State and Industry to Re-Open Tourism Safely P46
FIGURE 7.4: If Tourism Should Just Get Going or Make Big Changes First P47
1. INTRODUCTION
This statewide survey of 609 Hawai‘i residents was designed in late May and early June 2020. It was
then conducted from June 15 to June 22, 2020. As the survey questionnaire approached its final form,
Hawai‘i was opening up its local economy and most of its parks, had just announced lifting its
interisland quarantine (on June 16), but had not yet relaxed its 14-day quarantine for passengers
arriving from overseas. Beaches were crowded on weekends (especially on Memorial Day in late
May), with little attention to social distancing. Other states also were re-opening and seeing
Memorial Day crowds.
By mid-June, new cases were in fact escalating again, though not yet to the previous peak levels
experienced in late March and early April. State Deptartment of Health officials were frequently
quoted as saying such increases were to be expected due to relaxation of restrictions, and many of
the new cases were clustered in particular families, nursing homes, or social groups (e.g., churches).
The number of new cases in June through the end of data collection period exceeded the total
number for all of May.
FIG 1.1 TIMELINE OF NEW HAWAI‘I CASES, INCLUDING SURVEY DATES
DATA COLLECTION
60
50 SURVEY DESIGN
NEW CASES
40
30
20
10
0
March 1 April 1 May 1 June 1 July 1
By June 30, when this report was largely finalized, many other states were also seeing new surges –
attributed both to economic “opening up” and also to Memorial Day parties – and some Mainland
states were re-imposing various restrictions. Hawai‘i newspapers were warning that the upcoming
July 4 weekend could mean further surges here if residents were not careful about social distancing
and wearing masks. As this report went to press on July 8, Hawai‘i experienced 41 new cases, the
largest yet for a single day. The country as a whole also recorded new daily highs.
1.1 PURPOSE
The primary purpose of the survey was to explore Hawai‘i residents’ reactions to the various
“lockdown” restrictions imposed from March to May. We particularly wanted to learn which ones
would be generally acceptable or unacceptable to repeat if this virus or something similar should
again soon require emergency measures. Most chapters in this report have to do with that purpose.
Additionally, the survey may reveal some public misunderstandings meriting corrective educational
actions by government officials.
A secondary purpose was to get some preliminary sense about opinions regarding the upcoming
(but at that point still unscheduled) re-opening of the overseas tourism economy. How this could
occur safely was still being explored, with new information almost daily about the legality,
practicality, or effectiveness of testing air passengers to Hawai‘i. Therefore, we asked fewer questions
about this topic, and results are in a single section (Chapter 7).
One thread common to both survey purposes involves the level of public trust – trust in the need for
restrictions, in the safety that they did or did not assure, in government generally, and to some extent
in the visitor industry specifically. A few key survey questions attempt to measure how much trust
people currently feel.
We anticipate the survey’s greatest potential value to policymakers lies in resident assessment of
specific restrictions based on their March-to-May experiences. If there is a “next time” – very soon,
later in the year, or perhaps even in a few years due to some different pandemic – it seems unlikely
that the full spectrum of lockdown restrictions will be repeated due to their severe economic
consequences. Decisions about what to do in such a case will surely depend on more factors than
public opinion. However, this survey will hopefully provide some appropriate level of guidance if
and as policymakers must settle upon a more surgical approach – one that perhaps repeats some but
not all of the initial restrictions.
1.2 SURVEY METHODS

The survey was administered using Hawai‘i Panel, an online survey panel developed and
maintained by Ward Research. Panelists are awarded points for participating in surveys and can
redeem their points for PayPal payment or store gift cards. Those participating in this survey were
awarded points equal to $4.50. Panel-based research is a long-accepted practice in survey research,
with online panels increasing in usage due to the challenges associated with telephone interviewing.
The Hawai‘i Panel generally matches Hawai‘i’s population relative to key demographics, with the
acknowledgment that it does require online access.
The University of Hawai‘i Public Policy Center developed the survey instrument, which Ward
Research reviewed, programmed and administered. The statewide survey was administered
between June 15 to June 22, 2020. The mean number of minutes for survey completion was 18
minutes, with evidence that respondents invested time and thought in answering open-ended
questions. Quotas were set by county, for a total of 609 respondents statewide. Data were weighted
by age, gender, and ethnicity to reflect the statewide adult (18+) population demographic
composition. Table 1.1 shows the county, age, ethnicity, and gender weights used to weight the online
panel. The final sample has a margin of error of +/- 4 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval.
Data processing was accomplished using SPSS and banner tables were created using Wincross,
which incorporated tests of statistical significance on subsample differences.
TABLE 1.1 TABLE ON KEY DEMOGRAPHICS,

REPRESENTATIVENESS
Hawai‘i Adult Unweighted Weighted
Population (%)* Survey Data (%) Survey Data (%)
Hawai‘i Island 15 15 12
County
Kauai 5 4 4
Maui 12 12 10
O‘ahu 68 68 74
18-29 21 7 21
30-44 26 29 26
Age
45-54 16 16 16
55-64 17 22 18
65 or older 20 26 19
Filipino 13 5 13
Ethnicity
Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian 22 16 23
Japanese 21 26 23
White or Caucasian 23 27 20
Mixed/Other/Refused 22 26 23
Gender
Male 50 44 50
Female 50 55 50
*Based on 2018 U.S. Census (American Community Survey 5-Year) Estimates, the 2018 State of
Hawai‘i Data Book, the 2010 Census, and the 2010 Hawai‘i Health Survey
2. PERCEIVED GENERAL
SAFETY AND TRUST LEVELS
2.1 OVERALL SENSE OF SAFETY

AS OF MID-JUNE 2020
The first opinion question was: Hawai‘i is starting to re-open. Right now, how safe do you feel going out to
places with many other people?
Figure 2.1 shows 46% felt “Very” or “Fairly” Safe, while a 54% majority felt “A Little” or “Very”
Unsafe. Most answers were a bit hedged – i.e., residents were more likely to give a qualified “Fairly
Safe” or “A Little Unsafe,” rather than “Very” Safe or Unsafe. This suggests most people are nervous
about their safety, rather than feeling either definitely threatened or definitely confident.
FIGURE 2.1: PERCEIVED SAFETY GOING OUT IN

PUBLIC AS OF MID-JUNE 2020
10% 36% 0.3% 38% 15%
Very Safe Fairly Safe Don’t Know/ A Little Unsafe Very Unsafe
No Answer
For all charts in this report, unless

otherwise stated, N (wtd) = 609.
Percentages may not add exactly to
100% due to rounding error.
There were few substantial differences among the various demographic or other groups for which
cross-tabulations were done.1 The only key demographic group for which a slight majority felt “Safe”
was that of young people aged 18-29, and even this difference from the average percentage response
was small. A later question dealt with whether respondents expect another virus wave (Section 5.1),
and the small minority that did not expect another wave was, logically, much more likely to feel safe
right now.
TABLE 2.1: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES –

PERCEIVED SAFETY IN PUBLIC
Pct. “Very” or “Fairly” Safe
Total Age 18-29 52%
46% Don’t Expect Another Wave 84%
2.2 TRUST IN GOVERNMENT TO KEEP

PEOPLE SAFE
Immediately following was: As the re-opening continues, how much do you trust State and local
governments to keep everyone safe? Figure 2.2 indicates a 61% majority just “Somewhat” trusted Hawai‘i
governments, with another 10% saying they “Strongly” trusted and 28% feeling little or no trust.
Though most residents did not yet feel safe going

out, a majority felt at least partial trust in local
government to keep everyone safe.
FIGURE 2.2: TRUST IN STATE/LOCAL GOVERMENTS TO KEEP

PUBLIC SAFE
2%
10%
Little or No Trust
28%
Somewhat Trust
Strongly Trust
Don't Know/
61% No Answer
Virtually all the groups we analyzed showed the same general pattern of partial trust in government
– i.e., majorities saying “Somewhat Trust,” followed by “Little or No Trust” and only small
percentages saying “Strongly Trust.” The greatest levels of explicit distrust were among Native
Hawaiians, larger households, and people who answered later question about emotional distress
from restrictions “Poorly” (Section 4.3).

LOW TRUST IN GOVT. TO ENSURE SAFETY
Pct. “Little or No Trust”

Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian 40%
Total Household Size: 4 People 37%
28% Household Size: 5+

Handled Restriction “Somewhat/Very Poorly”
42%
44%
3. ASSESSMENT OF OVERALL
HAWAI‘I SAFETY LEVELS
3.1 BELIEFS ABOUT HOW HAWAI‘I HEALTH

OUTCOMES COMPARE TO OTHER STATES
Hawai‘i’s rate of cases and deaths from COVID-19 were much lower than other U.S. states. As of June
30, 2020, both total cases per 1 million residents (576) and also virus deaths per 1 million residents
(12) were lower than for any other U.S. state.2
To determine level of awareness, we asked: To the best of your knowledge, has Hawai‘i had higher rates of
Coronavirus cases than most U.S. states, about the same as most states, or lower rates of cases than most states?
Figure 3.1 shows the great majority of residents (94%) correctly answered “Lower Rate,” but 4%
thought we had “About the Same” or “Higher Rates,” with 2% unsure.
FIGURE 3.1: BELIEFS ABOUT HAWAI‘I VIRUS RATES COMPARED TO

OTHER STATES
Demographic or other group differences for

this belief were very small, with roughly
Higher Rates 90% or more of every group correctly saying
4% “Lower Rates.”
Lower Rates
94%
0.4% About Same
2% Don’t Know/
No Answer
3.2 WHAT HAWAI‘I DID RIGHT... AND WHAT WE

COULD HAVE DONE BETTER
We then asked respondents to write in their own answers to two open-ended questions:
What did we do right in addressing the What could we have done better in
Coronavirus pandemic? addressing the Coronavirus pandemic?
Answers were coded into general categories.3 Table 3.1 and Table 3.2, respectively, show the most
frequent types of answers to each question.
What We Did Right: Table 3.1 makes it clear that discouraging overseas tourists and imposing
quarantines was by far the most frequent general type of answer. Cross-tabulations showed it was
the top response category for virtually every group. Stay-at-home restrictions came in second
overall, at 35%. One group less likely to say this were lower-income households ($35,000 or under,
just 16%), which may often have consisted of people with service jobs or other occupations that could
not be done from home. Shutting down (including beaches, parks, and parties) was next at 24%,
followed closely by masks at 22%. Masks were more often cited by the 65+ kūpuna generation (34%,
vs. about 20% for all under 55) and by those who had not held a job as of February (35%). The last
type of answer with responses above the 10% level involved social distancing at 14%, again even
more important to the senior 65+ age group (28%) than others.
TABLE 3.1: MOST COMMON ANSWER CATEGORIES, “WHAT WE DID

RIGHT”
Type of Response Percentage*
Restricting travel/Shutting down tourism/14-day quarantine
52%
for tourists/Enforcement of quarantine breakers
Stay at home/Work from home/Lockdown/Curfew 35%
Shutting down/Closing business, schools, parks, beaches/
24%
Cancelling events, gathering
Masks/Requirements to wear masks 22%
Social Distancing 14%
*Percentages are based on entire sample (609). Because respondents could give more than
one answer, percentages for all coded categories could exceed 100%. The average respondent
gave 1.9 answers before coding.
Less frequently mentioned were the State’s quick response, having protocols for opening in place,
good communications from government, sanitizing and hand-washing, the start of testing and
contact tracing, praise for particular leaders, good data gathering, efforts to secure personal
protective equipment (PPE) to keep hospitals from overwhelm, and unemployment relief and food
drives. Only 2% said Hawai‘i had done “nothing right” or had “messed up the economy” with too
many restrictions.
What We Could Have Done Better: Residents gave fewer and more diverse answers to this question,
with no single answer category above 17%. Two out of the top three answer categories again involved
a focus on tourism (even more tourism restrictions and more effective tourist quarantine
enforcement for those who did come), with the other one involving desire for speedier overall
restrictions.4 The desire for more effective tourist quarantine enforcement was relatively strongest
among households with 2019 incomes above $150,000 (27%) and/or seniors 65+ (24%). Desire for more
testing was next at 14% overall, again with even greater support from seniors (21%). This was
followed by quicker local economy re-opening (10% overall, increasing to 27% among those who
said they don’t expect another wave of the virus).
TABLE 3.2: MOST COMMON ANSWER CATEGORIES, “WHAT WE

COULD HAVE DONE BETTER”
Should have been quicker/Timeliness, took too long to respond
17%
or make decisions/Started faster
Reduce travel further/Shut down airport 17%
More effective quarantine enforcement/Track visitors 17%
More testing/Test better, quicker/
14%
Mandatory state-wide testing/Antibody tests
Open up the economy more quickly/Closed too long/
10%
Give businesses guidelines earlier
*Because respondents could give more than one answer, percentages for all coded categories
could exceed 100%. The average respondent gave 1.4 answers before coding.
A wide range of other answer categories each garnered less than 10%. These included but were not
limited to better enforcement of social distance and mask requirements, better data and/or
communication, more coordinated action between State and counties, better delivery of
Unemployment Insurance benefits or other financial assistance, and need to delay re-opening even
longer. About 10% said they could think of nothing we could have done better and/or “we’re doing as
well as can be expected.”
4. ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC
HAWAI‘I RESTRICTIONS
(MARCH TO MAY)
Some questions specified restrictions that were in effect from “March to May” because many of these
were in the process of being lifted during the June timeframe in which the survey was taken.
4.1 IF RESTRICTIONS GENERALLY

“REASONABLE” OR NOT
An initial broad question was: In general, were the actions taken in response to the Coronavirus by State and
county governments mostly reasonable steps to protect public health, or mostly unreasonable violations of
individual rights and liberties?
While we recognized that some people might have nuanced opinions, the response categories
(shown in Figure 4.1) deliberately forced a clear choice between “Mostly Reasonable” and “Mostly
Unreasonable.” Figure 4.1 shows the great majority of residents (88%) thought the restrictions were
generally reasonable, with just 7% saying they were unreasonable violations of rights and liberties
and 5% unsure or unwilling to express an opinion.
FIGURE 4.1: WHETHER RESTRICTIONS SEEN AS

MOSTLY REASONABLE/UNREASONABLE
Don’t Know/No Answer
88% 5% 7%
Mostly Reasonable Steps to Protect Public Health Mostly Unreasonable Violations

of Individual Rights and Liberties
No demographic group had percentages “Mostly Unreasonable” any higher than 15%. However,
those who said their households had been significantly impacted financially (big dent in savings or
had to borrow money) did reach that 15% level, followed by a few ethnic groups. Some opinions and
attitudes were more strongly associated, though the direction of causality is not clear. People who
said they don’t expect another virus wave or who said they struggled emotionally with the
restrictions had larger minorities saying the restrictions were “Mostly Unreasonable.”

RESTRICTIONS SEEN AS “UNREASONABLE”
Pct. “Mostly Unreasonable”

Heavy Household Financial Impact 15%
Handled Restrictions
Total “Somewhat/Very Poorly”
33%
7% Caucasian
“Other” Ethnicity
12%
14%
Don’t Expect Another Wave 21%
4.2 REACTIONS TO SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS

During the March-to-May “lockdown,” residents faced many restrictions and changes, and we could
not list all of them. For example, there were periods of curfews on some islands, but these varied by
county. However, we did test a substantial number of the known constraints on normal behavior
during the initial 2020 lockdown.
Figure 4.2 shows these 20 specific restrictions – ordered by the percentages by which respondents
expressed retrospective approval – following the general question: Here is a list of some things local
governments did, or asked people here in Hawai‘i to do, to fight the Coronavirus from March to May. For each
of these, please indicate whether you think it was worth doing or not worth doing.
Each of these 20 items was found to be have been a worthwhile policy by majorities of respondents –
although, as will be seen in the following Chapter 5, that does not necessarily mean that everyone
would be happy to repeat each restriction if there is a “next time.”
The items with the largest minorities complaining these restrictions had not been “worth it” were:
Sharply restricting use of public Discouraging medical visits other than

beaches, 31% for the Coronavirus, 30%
Closing all shopping centers and many Requiring 14-day quarantine for
businesses, 20% inter-island air trips, 19%
Most of these involved impacts to personal life rather than to the economy. (Even closures of
shopping centers and businesses cause personal inconvenience, as well as economic damage.) All
four of these restrictions emerge again in the following chapter as top actions that many or most
residents would prefer government not repeat, or at least do differently, if another strong surge of the
virus occurs in the foreseeable future.
Demographic differences for these four relatively
objectionable restrictions were again not vast, The restrictions most
though the usual attitudinal relationships with
emotional responses and expectations of another
often judged “not worth
wave were somewhat more pronounced. Gender it” were largely about
differences comprised the most consistent
demographic factor, and were perhaps larger personal rather than
than Table 4.2 below might at first suggest – for economic impacts.
example, for inter-island quarantine, the 28%
Male “Not Worth It” is twice as large as the 13%
Female figure. Still, both remain fairly small
percentages.
FIGURE 4.2: RESTRICTIONS SEEN AS WORTH OR

NOT WORTH DOING IN THE MARCH-TO-MAY PERIOD
Worth it Don’t Know/Didn’t Answer Not Worth It
Telling people to stay 6 feet apart in public Closing theaters, gyms, indoor sports events
90% 3% 7% 88% 6% 7%
Requiring use of masks in public Discouraging parties w/ family, friends

89% 5% 6% 81% 7% 12%
Encouraging people to work from home Stopping outdoor team sports

95% 1% 4% 79% 7% 14%
Telling people always to stay home if possible Closing public schools/childcare

90% 3% 7% 84% 5% 12%
Send tourists home if caught leaving rooms Requiring non-essential workers to stay home
93% 3% 5% 83% 5% 12%
Returning residents must do 14-day quarantine Not allowing sit-in dining at restaurants
91% 3% 7% 83% 5% 12%
Shutting down vacation rentals Requiring 14-day qurantine inter-island trips
87% 5% 8% 77% 5% 19%
Tell tourists don’t come or do 14-day quarantine Closing shopping centers, many businesses
91% 3% 6% 75% 5% 20%
Closing all bars Sharply restricting use of public beaches
88% 3% 9% 65% 4% 31%
No visitors in senior (kūpuna) living centers Discourage medical visits except for virus
90% 5% 6% 58% 12% 30%
Some item wording slightly shortened/revised for reasons of space; see exact original words in
Appendix questionnaire.

RESTRICTIONS SEEN AS “NOT WORTH IT”
Pct. “Not Worth,” Beaches Pct. “Not Worth,” Medical Visits

Male 37% Male 38%
Caucasian 37%
Household Size 5+ 41%
Total “Other” Ethnicity 37% Total Don’t Expect
31% 30%
Don’t Expect 43%
53% Another Wave
Another Wave
Handled Handled
56% 40%
Restrictions “Poorly” Restriction “Poorly”
Pct. “Not Worth,” Closing Shops/Businesses Pct. “Not Worth,” Inter-Island Quarantine
Male 26% Male 28%
Heavy Household Chinese 27%
25%
Total Financial Impact Total Caucasian 24%
20% 19%
Don’t Expect Don’t Expect
40% 36%
Another Wave Another Wave
Handled Handled
35% 37%
Restriction “Poorly” Restrictions “Poorly”
Demographic differences for the remaining 16 items shown in Figure 4.2 were usually even less than
those shown above. The tendency for males and, sometimes, Caucasians to be a little more likely to
say “Not Worth It” popped up for other items as well, but again all these “Not Worth It” percentages
were quite small – some just a little smaller or larger than others. The attitude relationships (i.e.,
expectation of no new virus wave, poor emotional handling of restrictions) were usually apparent,
but these groups generally just had larger minorities saying “Not Worth It,” not actual majorities.
The only time these two attitudinal groups had majorities saying “Not Worth It” was, as per Table
4.2, in regard to restrictions on public beaches.
4.3 OVERALL EMOTIONAL REACTION

TO RESTRICTIONS
The next question was: Overall, on an emotional level, how well did you handle living with the coronavirus
restrictions?
As shown in Figure 4.3, only 7% acknowledged they were handling the lockdown “Somewhat” or
“Very” Poorly, though 48% gave the qualified answer “Somewhat” Well. Meanwhile, just 45%
contended they were doing “Very” Well.
FIGURE 4.3: HOW WELL RESPONDENTS WERE

HANDLING RESTRICTIONS EMOTIONALLY
Somewhat Well Somewhat Poorly
45% 48% 5%
1% 2%
Very Well Don’t Know/

No Answer Very Poorly
In Table 4.3 below we focus on showing groups particularly high or low in just the “Very Well”
percentages. Filipinos, people who were undergoing household financial stress, and young adults
were the groups least likely to say “Very Well.” There was a clear age pattern, with every age cohort a
little more likely than the younger one before to say “Very Well,” up to the majority 55% level for
seniors.

EMOTIONAL HANDLING OF LOCKDOWN
Pct. “Very Well”

Filipino (low percentage) 26%
Heavy Household Financial Impact
Total (low percentage)
33%
45% Age 18-29 (low percentage)

Age 65+ (high percentage)
36%
55%
Male (high percentage) 51%
4.4 RESTRICTIONS PEOPLE

FOUND PARTICULARLY HARD
We asked people to write in answers, in their own words, to the question: Of all the things people here
were asked to do to fight the Coronavirus, what were the most important restrictions/rules that you or your
household found really hard to follow? Respondents were asked to list up to three problematic rules, or to
answer “None” if that was actually the case.
The stated intention here was to identify restrictions that people found “hard to follow” (and,
implicitly, might be rules they actually broke). However, many people seemed to answer more in
terms of what they just found “hard” – i.e., things they particularly disliked. For example, some cited
“Inter-island travel bans/quarantine,” but that was a situation they disliked, not a rule they might
realistically have broken. Some answer categories were unclear or mixed – e.g., exercise includes “no
gyms” (all closed, and nobody could have gone) but also “no hiking” (which some people might have
done nevertheless).
Therefore, Table 4.4 shows the most frequent answer categories (after coding5) for each of three
general clusters: (a) those that appeared plausible to interpret as “Hard to Follow,” (b) those that
appeared usually to be restrictions that were just hard to like (“Particularly Disliked”), and (c) a few
categories that were Mixed or Unclear. Even these distinctions are approximate and subjective, so the
safer interpretation of these results is simply that these were the “hardest” restrictions for residents.
TABLE 4.4: TOP RESTRICTIONS JUDGED HARDEST BY RESIDENTS
None/Nothing hard to follow 41%

Not able to visit family, friends/Not able
20%
Hard to to have visitors/No parties, gatherings
Follow Staying home/confinement/curfew 19%
Having to wear mask/hard to breathe
18%
with mask
Closed beaches/Closed parks 13%
Social distancing 9%
Continued on next page

TABLE 4.4: TOP RESTRICTIONS JUDGED HARDEST BY RESIDENTS

(CONTINUED)
Travel ban/Inter-island quarantine/
9%
flying restrictions
Particularly No eating out/Not able to dine in/
6%
Disliked Go to bars
Quantity limits on essential items/
6%
Only shopping for essential items/Hoarding
Not working/Economy shutdown/
5%
Mixed/ Working from home
Unclear No gym/Hiking/Running/Play sports/
4%
Golf/Exercise, etc
*Because respondents could give more than one answer, percentages for all coded categories could
exceed 100%. The average respondent gave 1.2 answers before coding.
Perhaps remarkably, more than four in ten respondents said they found nothing hard to follow.
However, there was again a clear age pattern, with much more accepting equanimity among seniors
aged 65+ (53%) and people in the 45-54 or 55-64 age brackets (about 47% each), and much less in the
young adult 18-29 category (just 25%). Neighbor Islanders were more likely to find nothing hard to
follow (49%) than were O‘ahu residents (40%). As expected, the group least likely to say nothing had
been hard involved people who said they were handling the lockdown “poorly,” with just 12%.
For those who did say some restrictions were hard to follow, the top responses both involved social
isolation – inability to see family/friends and also confinement to homes, each about 20%. These were
followed by issues with masks (18%) and closed beaches/parks (13%). Young adults 18-29 found it
particularly hard to follow restrictions against socializing with family and friends (30%) and closed
beaches/ parks (23%).
People who said they were dealing with the lockdown “poorly” were much more likely to cite three
of these particular restrictions: confinement to homes (42%), masks (37%), and closed beaches/parks
(28%). However, they did not stand out as being more likely than others to say that inability to see
family/friends was a hard restriction to follow.
5. IF THERE IS ANOTHER WAVE...

This chapter includes some of the most potentially critical survey results. Will people be willing to
comply with all the same restrictions if caseloads spike again to previous or greater levels?
It should be noted that we did not ask about possible large general changes in the way society could
respond if there is a next wave. The restrictions imposed from March to May 2020 might be viewed
as specific “tactics” that were part of a broader “strategy” of locking down most normal social and
economic functions to minimize virus transmission. There could be different future overall strategies
– e.g., deciding to keep far more economic activity going while making it the responsibility of older
or other vulnerable people alone to protect themselves by not working, self-isolating, etc. We did not
ask for opinions about such large strategic shifts because they have not been systematically aired or
explored in public meetings or news media. We assume substantial public uncertainty over such
possible strategic changes.
In fact, the State currently has a plan for assessing various risk levels and gradually changing
different restrictions depending on changes in caseloads and hospital capacity. This system seemed
too complex to present directly in a survey to test public awareness and comfort levels.
5.1 LIKELIHOOD OF ANOTHER WAVE

The initial question for this section was: Do you think Hawai‘i will probably get another serious wave of the
Coronavirus?
As shown in Figure 5.1, 67% said “Yes,”

another serious wave was likely; 15% said
“No;” and 18% were unsure or did not want Most residents expect
to answer. Thus, about two out of three are
expecting that the worst is not yet over, and
another wave.
only one out of six feels confident that
Hawai‘i is now out of the woods in regard to
the virus.
FIGURE 5.1: BELIEFS ABOUT WHETHER ANOTHER WAVE IS LIKELY
18%
Yes
15% No
67% Don't Know/
No Answer
Demographic and other group differences for this item were very small. People who said they
handled the lockdown “poorly” were a little less likely to expect another wave (just 56% “Yes”), but
that difference was not statistically significant.
5.2 WHEN RESTRICTIONS SHOULD

AGAIN BE IMPOSED
The follow-up question was: If there is an increase in Coronavirus cases again, when should the State
consider resuming some of the same restrictions? Possible response categories and results are shown in
Figure 5.2.
A clear majority of 62% said the best indicator is simply rising caseloads for several weeks in a row.
Just 8% wanted to have restrictions never again. Only 12% focused on hospital capacity (generally
considered by public health experts to be the most important metric). A similar 13% said they would
rely on “Other Clear Signs” besides those offered as optional answers, and their explanations of
what these are discussed shortly below.
FIGURE 5.2: BEST INDICATION THAT RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE

RE-IMPOSED
6% When cases go up several

8% weeks in a row
Wait to see if hospitals fill up
13%
Wait for other clear signs
we need them again
62%
Never want same
12% restrictions again
Don't Know/No Answer
Again, demographic and other group differences were small and not particularly informative.
Almost all groups had majorities choosing “When Cases Go Up Several Weeks in a Row,” with
remaining percentages scattered among “Wait for Other Clear Signs,” “Hospitals Fill Up,” and
“Never Again” (People who handled the lockdown “poorly” or who did not expect another wave
were a little more likely to say “Never Again”, but even these groups just had about 20% each
resistant to all restrictions.)
Only those respondents who said the State should await “Other Clear Signs” were then asked to
describe in their own words: What other types of clear signs do you feel should be used as the basis for
resuming public restrictions?
Replies were coded into general categories, and Table 5.1 shows the most frequent types of answers6,
with community spread as the dominant suggestion.
TABLE 5.1: SUGGESTED “OTHER CLEAR SIGNS” FOR RE-IMPOSING

RESTRICTIONS
Cases among local residents/Community spread/
35%
Beyond small clusters
Watch what’s happening elsewhere & impose restrictions
12%
beforehand/CDC recommendations
Should continue shutdown/Too early to remove restrictions 11%
Increase in inappropriate activities/large gatherings/
9%
not following COVID-prevention
*Because respondents could give more than one answer,

percentages for all coded categories could exceed 100%. The
N (wtd) for this question was 79. average respondent gave 1.04 answers before coding.
5.3 SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS THAT SHOULD BE

DONE AGAIN OR DONE DIFFERENTLY
The same list of 20 different specific restrictions which respondents had previously retrospectively
evaluated (Section 4.2) was repeated as part of a prospective question: If the Coronavirus does come back
later, do you think Hawai‘i should do each of these things again, not do them again, or do them but in some
different way?
Figure 5.3 presents results, ordered by percentage willing to “Do Again.” Note that other answers
included both “Don’t Do Again” and also “Do in Different Way.” Majorities were willing to do
almost all the same restrictions again if necessary, but residents were clearly more reluctant about
certain ones. And a few did in fact have majorities saying either “Don’t Do” or “Different Way,” while
others had large pluralities for the combined total of these two possible answers:
Discouraging medical visits other than Sharply restricting use of public

for the Coronavirus, 24% (“Don’t Do”) beaches, 25% (“Don’t Do”) plus 27%
plus 32% (“Do Differently”) = total 55%; (“Do Differently”)= total 52%;
Closing all shopping centers and many Requiring 14-day quarantine for
businesses, 14% (“Don’t Do”) plus 34% inter-island air trips, 20% (“Don’t Do”)
(“Do Differently”) = total 48%; plus 23% (“Do Differently”) = total 43%.
These four items are identical to

the ones that large minorities Majorities or large pluralities do
identified as “Not Worth It” in
the earlier (Section 4.2)
not want to repeat the
retrospective assessment of the March-to-May restrictions on
value of different controls and
constraints. However, the various
medical visits, beach use, local
percentages not wanting to repeat economic shutdown, and
these objectionable restrictions
became much higher when
inter-island quarantines in the
people were asked about doing same way next time, even
them again in the future.
though they earlier said these
things were worth doing first
time around.
Again, most of these particularly problematic restrictions have more to do with personal than
economic impacts. However, the one arguably “economic” impact item (Closing Shopping
Centers/Businesses) did stand out as having the highest percentage of residents who thought this
should be handled in a “Different Way” (34%) in the future.
FIGURE 5.3: RESTRICTIONS THAT SHOULD BE DONE,

NOT DONE, OR DONE DIFFERENTLY “NEXT TIME”
Do Again Don’t Know/Didn’t Answer Don’t Do Again Different Way
Telling people to stay 6 feet apart in public Closing theaters, gyms, indoor sports events
1% 6%
90% 77% 1% 6% 6%
17%7%
3%
Requiring use of masks in public Discouraging parties w/ family, friends

89% 4%
5% 6% 69% 2% 12% 7% 18%
Encouraging people to work from home Stopping outdoor team sports

88% 2% 7% 69% 2% 9% 7% 21%
14%
3%
Telling people always to stay home if possible Closing public schools/childcare

82% 1% 13% 66% 2% 10% 5% 22%
4%
Send tourists home if caught leaving rooms Requiring non-essential workers to stay home
82% 1% 14% 1%
63% 11% 5% 25%
4%
Returning residents must do 14-day quarantine Not allowing sit-in dining at restaurants
81% 1% 14% 61% 2% 10% 5% 28%

12%
5%
Shutting down vacation rentals Requiring 14-day qurantine inter-island trips
80% 2% 8% 10% 56% 2% 20% 5% 23%
Tell tourists don’t come or do 14-day quarantine Closing shopping centers, many businesses
79% 1% 17% 51% 2% 14% 5% 20%

34%
4%
Closing all bars Sharply restricting use of public beaches

79% 2% 6% 14% 47% 1% 25%4% 27%
31%
No visitors in senior (kūpuna) living centers Discourage medical visits except for virus
78% 2% 16% 43% 2% 24% 32%

4%
In terms of demographic differences, the most important finding is probably the relative lack of them.
However, those listed in Table 5.2 show the usual Male tendency to be somewhat more critical than
Females. We also found a tendency in the results for many items for lower-income groups to be more
willing to repeat restrictions. For example, for the inter-island air quarantine, only 34% with 2019
household incomes under $35,000 said either “Don’t Do” Or “Different Way.” This rose to 39% for
those with $35,000 - $75,000 incomes, 46% for $75,0000 - $150,000, and 53% for those with household
incomes above $150,000.

“DON’T DO AGAIN” OR “DO DIFFERENTLY”
Combined Pct. “Don’t” or “Differently,” Beaches Pct. “Don’t” or “Differently,” Medical Visits
Male 59% Chinese (note: small sample) 78%
Caucasian 61% Male 59%
Total Total
52% 55%
Don’t Expect Don’t Expect
74% 63%
Another Wave Another Wave
Handled Handled
70% 68%
Restrictions “Poorly” Restriction “Poorly”
Pct. “Don’t” or “Differently,” Closing Shops, etc. Pct. “Don’t” or “Differently,” Island Quarantine
Chinese (note: small sample) 60% Chinese (note: small sample) 53%
Male 52%
Total Caucasian 56%
Total
43%
Don’t Expect
48% Don’t Expect
Another Wave
71% Another Wave
63%
Handled Handled
70% 63%
Restriction “Poorly” Restriction “Poorly”
Table 5.2 also shows that people who handled the lockdown “poorly” or who don’t expect another
wave were more likely to say “Don’t Do Again” or “Do in Different Way.” This greater reluctance was
true for almost all of the 20 items listed.
Other items in Figure 5.3 with roughly 30% - 40% combined “Don’t Do” and “Do Differently”
percentages include: the ban on sit-in restaurant dining; requiring non-essential workers to stay
home; closing schools/childcare; discouraging parties; and stopping outdoor sports. All of these
were even more strongly resisted by those who said they were handling the lockdown “poorly”
and/or those not expecting another virus wave. Finally, we note that for almost all of these items,
Neighbor Islanders were a little more likely to say “Do Again,” though differences with O‘ahu results
were typically small and/or shy of statistical significance.
5.4 HOW TO DO CERTAIN THINGS DIFFERENTLY

NEXT TIME
For those specific restrictions that respondents thought should be done in a “Different Way” if there
is a next wave, we wanted to capture their ideas about what that “Different Way” should be. We
reminded them of which items for which they had given this answer, and then asked: Which of these
do you feel most strongly about? Please choose ONE item only.7
Respondents were then asked to describe in their own words: How should we do this differently next
time? Answers were coded into general categories. We should again note that the original verbatim
comments were often carefully thought out, particularly for this question, and worth reading. We
reproduce a few of them below but encourage review of all.8
Table 5.3 shows both the five most frequently named things chosen as most important to be done
differently, as well as the most common answers for each of those things that at least some people
strongly felt should be done differently. These include: (1) Telling tourists not to come or stay in
rooms 14 days; (2) Closing all shopping centers and many businesses; (3) Discouraging medical visits
other than for the Coronavirus; (4) Closing public schools and childcare facilities; and (5) Sharply
restricting use of public beaches.
TABLE 5.3: TOP THINGS TO DO DIFFERENTLY, AND HOW EACH OF THESE

SHOULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY
Thing That Should Be How This Thing Should Be Done Differently Percentage*
Done Differently
Test people before they come/When they first
arrive in Hawai‘i
60%
Telling tourists not
to come or stay in Better tracking/Stricter enforcement for
violators/Fines & jail time 48%
rooms 14 days
Do not allow tourist to come to Hawai‘i/Enforce a
(Wtd N = 49, Avg.
central quarantine/Restrict flights 30%
Answers/Respondent = 1.4)
Don't know/Refused 3%
Allow business/activities with precautions like
masks/social distancing/sanitary procedures 52%
Closing all shopping Allow businesses to do business by appointment/

centers and many Customers can reserve a time/Online or curbside 37%
businesses pickup/Limit hours, customer entry
(Wtd N = 46, Avg. Make masks a requirement/enforce masks 24%

Other (includes “Let non-essentials go back to
work earlier,” “Do more testing”) 12%
Easier to visit doctor/E-Visits/Better medical care for
Discouraging non-Covid conditions 83%
medical visits other Sterile visiting centers/Procedures for visiting elderly,
than for the 7%
vulnerable
Coronavirus
Other (includes “Allow medical centers to see patients by 13%
(Wtd N = 48, Avg. appointment only”)
Stagger classes/alternate in-school attendance with
29%
distance learning/smaller classes
Allow kids to go back to school/childcare with Covid
28%
Closing public precautions taken
schools and Open schools but screen for sick children/No sick children to
23%
childcare facilities attend/Check temperatures
Open schools but with social distancing 22%
(Wtd N = 44, Avg. Answers/
Remote learning is inadequate/Needs to
Respondent = 1.6) 18%
be improved
Only close schools that have cases of Covid-19 12%
General complaints that working parents need
10%
childcare/schools to be available
Other (incl. “Make masks a requirement”) 20%
Continued on next page
TABLE 5.3: TOP THINGS TO DO DIFFERENTLY, AND HOW EACH OF

THESE SHOULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY
Thing That Should Be How This Thing Should Be Done Differently Percentage*
Done Differently
Allow the use of beaches with social distancing/Allow
but no gatherings
75%
Only apply restrictions to crowded beaches/busy

beaches 22%
Sharply restricting
use of public Have patrols to enforce Covid-19 rules so people can
beaches 15%
continue to use the beaches
(Wtd N = 28, Avg. Allow exercise/walking/fitness activities on the
Answers/Respondent = 1.3) beaches
12%
Allow business/activities with precautions likes
masks/social distancing/sanitary procedures
4%
Other (includes “Allow fitness activities with social

distancing”)
4%
* Percentages are for various categories of “How This Should Be Done Differently” within each category
of “Thing That Should Be Done Differently.” Because respondents could give more than one answer,
percentages for all coded categories could exceed 100%.
These “Top 5” items included three that were

most likely to have been identified as “Not People who said they
Worth It” in Section 4.2 and also as things that
majorities did not want to do again in the wanted certain things
preceding Section 5.3 – i.e., postponing many done differently “next
non-virus medical visits, closing shopping
centers/businesses, and closing public beaches. time” were somewhat
(The fourth item that generated complaints in
the earlier sections, the inter-island quarantine
more likely to focus on
for residents, was not heavily mentioned here.) economic as well as
However, two other items rose to the top for
people who wanted them done differently –
social restrictions.
quarantines for overseas tourists and closing
schools/childcare facilities. Thus, the issues are
a mix of economic and more social (personal and family convenience) concerns. Below we present
some of the open-ended comments for these Top 5 things to do differently.
Opening Overseas Tourism/Ending Quarantine Safely: As shown in Table 5.3, most people focused
on safety conditions for arriving passengers – particularly testing and tracking/enforcement of
conditions. Many of the original comments seem more concerned with protecting Hawai‘i residents
than with re-opening the tourism economy, but there were also a number that focused on balancing
health and economy. The idea of establishing some sort of quarantine facility for infected visitors or
those pending tests ran through such comments.
“
We should test the tourists before they come. Yes, some will be false negatives but we will
always be living with the disease. Tourism is the biggest part of our economy and the
Governor hasn’t shared any plan to reopen. Other option is creating quarantine hotels where
guests must stay for 14 days before leaving the property. We are going to pay the price for
years by shutting down tourism this long, let alone shutting it down twice.
I think tourists can be allowed to come, subject to providing a Certified test negative for
Covid result taken 72 hours prior to arriving in Hawai‘i or such result immediately upon
arrival in Hawai‘i. They must stay in designated areas in the Airport until they can provide a
negative test result. If the testing process takes longer than several hours, the tourists can be
housed in designated hotels for pending Covid test visitors only. No visitors or leaving the
hotel until proof of a negative Covid test.
Make sure tourists know that enforcement is strict. Let them know about the stiff penalties
and have them place a refundable “deposit” of $2,000 per adult with the state. If they
complete their 14 days , they will be refunded. Hotels will be in charge of checking on the
tourists and the hotel will notify state via a “hotline” messaging/call center of tourists
leaving rooms. This practice will help hotels get business as the vacation rentals (which
should not be operating) that tourists have been staying at will not be an issue. Prior to
departing, airlines reservations staff will be tasked with confirming hotel reservations of
”
their passengers at time of flight booking. Passengers can upload a hotel reservation
confirmation to the airline. If the tourist cancels hotel reservation, the hotel will report to
state. Another option would be to have tourists prepay their hotel room for 14 days (non
refundable). Package tours are sold this way so it’s not a new concept.
However, a substantial number of comments were more about the perceived threat from large-scale
tourism opening, and reluctance to see many visitors coming again soon:
“
Shutting down all visitors, make Hawai‘i a NO FLY zone for visitors. Keeping them in their
hotel room does not work, as we've already experienced. A designated area for quarantine if
”
needed. We encountered military families in Waimānalo [that] have large gatherings during
our restriction who didn't care about that our state was in quarantine. They said call the
police, they came last week and didn't do a thing. That's the mentality of most visitors, we
don't need them.
Keeping the Local Economy More Open: The results and recommendations summarized in Table
5.3 at a general level mostly involve keeping more businesses open with various calibrated safety
precautions – masks, social distancing, and limited hours or business by appointment to reduce
crowd size. Several people emphasized that smaller or less “essential” businesses deserve attention
and protection in any future re-imposition of restrictions.
“
I think they should rotate stores maybe and having limited hours for different shops so
people who need to buy from that store can do so and then you minimize how many people
are at the mall because only select stores are open.
I think with requiring masks, social distancing and restricting the number of people in
stores, as is now done in grocery stores, many businesses could remain open. This may not
include stores like hairstylists or others that require long lengths in intimate distance to
someone else.
Observe social distancing and masking and limits on max capacity like doing now. It is a
tremendous economic cost to close everything down. It was smart the first time, but maybe
next time strict protections will allow business to continue and keep people employed.
Let them stay open. Encourage curbside pickup, lower the amount allowed in the store,
install plexi glass. Keep mom and pop stores open.
”
Support small businesses to remain open safely (masks, curbside pickup, good airflow etc.). I
think it is absurd that outdoor farmers markets were shut down while big box stores
remained open.
Better Access to Medical Non-COVID Medical Services: The great majority of suggestions here
simply involved ensuring that medical facilities make some kind of provision for visits with
purposes other than the virus. (It is to be remembered that Hawai‘i residents were spared the
experiences of places such as New York City, where intensive care units and hospitals in general
were overwhelmed by virus patients. Few if any of the comments in this survey seemed to envision
that possibility for Hawai‘i.)
“
Encourage e-visits to access whether or not an in-person treatment is required or if
medication can be prescribed. If in-person treatment is required, a controlled setting should
be in place for doctors to access patients safely (i.e. using proper virus-prevention procedure).
I believe it is very important for people to received proper medical care. During the
pandemic, I was ill and experienced many COVID symptoms. However, due to my lack of
fever, I was dismissed multiple times and was not given proper treatment. I was not able to
visit my PCP, and was instead referred to a separate clinic. I felt the overall treatment I
received was not satisfactory. Hospitals were also discouraging people from visiting the ER
unless they had COVID or a life-or-death emergency. It felt very difficult to receive
proper care.
”
People need to receive medical care always. Medical offices should be allowed to serve their
patients in person, but follow the rule of social distancing, masks, and sanitize entering and
leaving facility.
“
Allow medical visits for other ailments. E.g. I received a brain scan in January and had my
medical appointments postponed 3 times, this time till late July.
Now that people are more familiar with tele-health/tele-medicine, encourage people to use
”
this format from the outset. For those who need to have labs done, keep those open (like at
Kaiser) so patients can drop off urine samples and get blood drawn. Taking temps before
entering is quick and easy and I have appreciated that once our healthcare system began
encouraging folks to start returning for regular appointments.
Making Schools and Childcare Facilities More Accessible: Many of the suggestions in Table 5.3
parallel those made for local businesses – i.e., keep them open, but with various possible safety
precautions such as masks, social distancing, and adjustments to class size or schedules. Whether all
of these would be logistically practical for schools or childcare operators is, obviously, another
question. A number of comments emphasized that online learning only is a less satisfactory
educational technique for children, as well as something preventing parents from going to work.
“
Morning & afternoon check on children's temperature. Must wear masks. Distancing desks,
play area, wipe down every hour.
We can close temporarily and do a comprehensive cleaning and then distance the desks,
implement mask wearing, teach some classes outdoors, break up recesses to smaller groups,
have lunch outdoors rather than packed in a cafeteria. Maybe even shorten the day and split
distance learning with in-person learning. Alternating days for students. Have students help
with cleaning their area at the end of the day so that it isn't all on the maintenance
department. Reinforcing good hygiene as we already do...hand washing, coughing in your
elbow or a tissue and washing hands after sneezing, etc.
I think childcare facilities are really important especially for parents of essential workers. A
possible solution could be to accept childcare facilities on a first come first serve basis. Only
accepting the maximum capacity to keep with social distancing regulations. But also giving
”
priority to essential workers.
NOT have only remote learning. There needs to be a level of in person instruction at the
DOE level. Having both full-time working parents essentially home school
Better Access to Public Beaches: The great majority of suggestions again involved the idea of
keeping them open subject to safety precautions (particularly density), with a minority
recommendation to close only the crowded beaches. There were also a few who seemed to accept
closure for mainstream family and social gathering but who thought more solitary walking and
individual exercising should be allowed. The issue of enforcement of “open but limited use” was not
often explicitly addressed, though it is an obvious question if beaches are to be left open but
crowding is somehow to be reduced. A number of comments simply emphasized the centrality of
beaches to the quality of life in the Islands.
“
I feel folks need some relief. And going to the beach is therapeutic. Believe we can enforce
the social distancing requirement....folks would probably follow the rules if they knew they
may lose this privilege.
Have beach patrols to encourage social distancing and limit access if beach reaches
maximum capacity.
Allowing fishing/swimming (practicing social distance); allowing exercise/walking the

beaches, parks, walking your dog.
We need social distancing, but you cannot pick and choose activity allowed and not allowed.
Such as sunbathing vs swimming vs exercise. Also opening beaches and cutting off parking
stupid. No sitting in a park but you can walk through it to get to the beach stupid. I know no
one was ready for this but at times it was a political pissing contest vs really helping the
”
people.
Restrict specific beaches that have high crowds, like Waikiki. Maui has many beaches and
none are that crowded, the restriction of beach use was not necessary.
6. HOUSEHOLD IMPACTS FROM

VIRUS OR RESTRICTIONS
6.1 FINANCIAL IMPACT
This cluster of survey questions began with the

query: Has your household experienced either a More than 30% of
significant loss of savings or a need to borrow money
because of the Coronavirus situation? Figure 6.1 Hawai‘i households
shows that 31% said “Yes;” 65% said “No;” and said they were
the remaining 4% were unsure or declined to
answer. It should be noted that the percentages undergoing financial
experiencing significant financial distress could
well climb in coming months as various
distress
unemployment benefits, federal subsidies, and
renter protections may expire.
FIGURE 6.1: IF HOUSEHOLD THUS FAR IS EXPERIENCING

SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL DISTRESS
4%
31% Yes
No
65% Don't Know/

No Answer
Demographic or other group differences were generally more pronounced for the impacts discussed
in this chapter than for the opinions discussed previously. As might be expected, the burden of
financial sacrifice disproportionately affects lower-income households (a demographic that
expressed relatively more willingness to repeat restrictions if necessary – see discussion in Section
5.3). As shown in Table 6.1, 46% of those with 2019 household incomes under $35,000 reported heavy
financial impacts. This fell to 32% for those with incomes $35,000 - $75,000; 20% for incomes $75,000 -
$150,000; and 17% for incomes of $150,000 or more.
TABLE 6.1: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – HEAVY HOUSEHOLD

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Pct. “Yes,” Significant Loss of Savings or Need to Borrow

Household Income Under $35K 46%
Renters 44%
Filipino 39%
Total Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian 35%
31% Age 18-44

Household Size: 5+
37%
39%
Householdswith 2+ Children 39%
Working in Private Sector as of February 36%
Handled Restrictions “Poorly” 40%
Most of the other factors shown in Table 6.1 relate in some way to likelihood of having lower
incomes. However, it might be further noted that private-sector workers were significantly more
likely to say they were heavily financially impacted (36%) than were people who had been working
for government or non-profits (20%) or who had not been working in February (18%). This difference
will likely have impacts on reactions to public worker pay raises and/or efforts to retain rather than
lay off workers in the public sector.
6.2 STAY-AT-HOME PATTERNS AND CHANGES

Two inter-linked following questions were:
Did you stay home most of the day when all Only those who answered “Yes” to the
the restrictions were in place? above were also asked, Before the
Coronavirus, did you usually stay home
most of the day?
Figure 6.2 shows overall percentage results for the combined questions. This indicates that 62%
actually changed their normal daily routines to “shelter in place” during the March-to-May period.
Just 15% of the sample said they did not stay home most of the day during the lockdown timeframe.9
FIGURE 6.2: PERCENTAGES STAYING HOME

(AND WHETHER THAT WAS CHANGE) Don’t Know/No Answer
62% 22% 15% 0.2%
Stayed Home Stayed Home Did Not

(Not Usual) (As Usual) Stay Home
This chart combines the results of two questions, so that indicated results are based on full
sample N (wtd) = 609
Table 6.2 shows a few demographic groups with relatively higher percentages saying they did not
stay home, as well as several with particularly low percentages (i.e., groups more likely to say they
had stayed home, whether or not this was a change in normal schedule). No clear patterns were
found by household income, so it is possible that the few groups relatively more likely to admit being
away-from-home were those in crowded households or had similar motivations.

NOT STAYING HOME DURING LOCKDOWN
Pct. Did Not Stay Home During Lockdown

Filipino 29%
Total Household Size: 5+ 23%
15% Not Working as of Feb. (low percentage)

Age 65+ (low)
4%
9%
Japanese (low) 9%
6.3 CHILDREN AT HOME AND ANY

NEGATIVE IMPACTS
The next two questions were also inter-linked, and in a similar way:
Did one or more children under 18 in this Only those who answered “Yes” to the above
household mostly stay home all day when all were also asked, Do you feel the education or
the restrictions were in place? personal development of the child/children
has been negatively affected? If even one child
was negatively affected, please answer Yes.
Figure 6.3 shows basic results for each question. Seven out of eight households with children said one
or more of the children usually stayed home all day. And the proportion of households with children
who stayed home – and who reported a child’s education or personal development had been
negatively affected was 66%.
Two-thirds of the households with children at

home said at least one child had been negatively
affected in their educations or personal
developments.
FIGURE 6.3: IF CHILDREN STAYED HOME

(AND IF WERE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED)
Mostly Stayed Home If At Least One Child Negatively Affected
0.3% Don't Know/

No Answer 6%
Don't Know/
35% No Children No Answer
in Household 27%
No
60%
No 66% Yes, Affected
5%
Yes
N (Wtd) = 609 N (Wtd) = 211 (Households with

Children at Home)
Some demographic groups were of course more likely to have children at home – people in their 30s
through early 50s, Filipinos and Hawaiians, renters, larger households, and respondents who worked
(as non-workers could include retirees).
The more critical issue is whether some groups with children who stayed home were more or less
likely to say there had been negative effects. The banner cross-tabulations suggested a few groups –
e.g., the more affluent or older respondents – were a bit more likely to say “Yes,” children had been
negatively affected, but most differences were fairly minor (and not statistically significant due to
small sub-sample sizes).10
6.4 SELECTED OTHER SPECIFIC HOUSEHOLD

IMPACTS: OVERALL RESULTS
Many types of specific impacts were possible to imagine, and some of them might have been positive
(e.g., more family closeness, better appreciation for everyday blessings, chance to resume
long-delayed personal projects, etc.).
However, for reasons of time, we selected just nine primarily negative impacts to explore in response
to the question: Did any of the following things happen to you or other immediate household members during
March to May due to the Coronavirus or the restrictions? If Yes, please indicate if this was yourself, another
household member, or both you and other household member.
Figure 6.4 shows results for these nine items. The most common impact was that someone – the
respondent, another household member, or both – temporarily switched to working at home (56%
total). The least frequently reported impact, though arguably one of the most important, was
permanent job loss (7%, albeit with another 6% declining to answer). However, 34% of households
had someone temporarily laid off, and 28% reported worry about either lay off or permanent job
loss soon.
FIGURE 6.4: SELECTED HOUSEHOLD IMPACTS

FROM VIRUS OR RESTRICTIONS
No Don’t Know/Didn’t Answer Yes, Self Yes, Both Yes, Other HH Member
Permanently lost job 3% 3% Put off some possibly important medical issue
88% 6% 63% 2% 21% 7% 7%
1%
Serious personal emotional issues Big loss of income
70% 7% 9% 6% 7% 62% 3% 14% 9% 13%
Worried may be laid off or lose job soon Switched to working at home
66% 6% 13% 4% 11% 40% 5% 27% 12% 17%
Temporarily laid off from job
63% 3% 14% 5% 15%
Filed for Unemployment Insurance Benefits Receiving Unemployment Insurance Benefits
60% 3% 16% 4% 17% 65% 4% 14% 3% 15%
Although only 7% had previously said they were handling the lockdown either “Somewhat” or
“Very” Poorly on an emotional basis (Section 4.3), by this point in the questionnaire process, more
than one out of five respondents (22%) said they or someone else in the household had “serious
personal emotional problems.”
At least 37% of households reported at least one person filing for Unemployment Insurance
Benefits, and about 31% actually receiving Unemployment Insurance Benefits. These numbers
suggest that roughly one out of six who have filed were not yet receiving Unemployment payments
as of mid-June.
Finally, about 35% said they or another household member had “Put off some possibly important
medical issue.” It may be recalled that delaying non-COVID medical consultations was one of the
most problematic restrictions identified earlier in Section 4.2 and again in Section 5.3.
6.5 SELECTED OTHER SPECIFIC HOUSEHOLD

IMPACTS: DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES
Demographic or other group differences were substantial for most of these items and merit their own
brief section.
TABLE 6.3 SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES –

VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD IMPACTS
(All Pcts. Combined “Yes” for Self and/or Other Household Members)
Switched to Work at Home Big Loss of Income

Income $150K 67% Filipino 48%
Total Income $75K-$150K 61% Total Income <$35K 47%
56% Japanese
Govt/Non-Proft
61%
35% Renters
Handle “Poorly”
45%
53%
79%
Worker as of Feb. Household Size 5+ 45%
Put off Medical Issue Temporarily Laid Off

Heavy Financial 45% Heavy Financial 58%
Total “Other” Ethnic 43% Total Chinese 42%
35% Handle “Poorly” 56% 34% Handle “Poorly” 49%
2+ Seniors in Home 43% Govt/Non-Profit 40%
Worry Laid Off or Job Loss Serious Emotional Problems

Heavy Financial 52% Heavy Financial 45%
Total Filipino 42% Total Income <$35K 35%
28% Handle “Poorly” 49% 23% Income $35K-$75K 29%
Children in Home 34% Handle “Poorly” 72%

Permanently Lost Job Filed for Unemployment Benefits

Heavy Financial 63%
Heavily Financial 19%
Age 18-29 48%
Total Total Renters 47%
7% Income <$35K 12%

37% Income <$35K
Private Sector/
Self-Employed
42%
45%
Handle “Poorly” 13%
Receiving Unemployment Benefits

Heavy Financial 46%
Age 18-29 41%
Total Filipino 39%
31% Renters
Private Sector/
Self-Employed
38%
37%
Table 6.3 suggests the following conclusions:
Government workers and the relatively The Filipino ethnic group, which has a
affluent were best able to switch jobs to strong presence in the tourism and
work at home, while more marginalized service sectors, has also been
groups – the lower-income, the young disproportionately affected.
adults, the renters – have borne
disproportionately more of the economic
impacts (along with associated anxieties
and emotional issues).
Those who previously said their households had experienced heavy financial impacts
(Section 6.1) feature prominently in these statistics, along with those who say they’ve reacted
“poorly” to the lockdown. That is to be expected with the economic impacts – one would
assume that households with job loss would also result in significant household financial
issues. However, note there are also strong relationships between reporting a heavy financial
impact and both serious emotional problems and putting off possibly important medical
issues. These are the sorts of negative synergies that make it more difficult to emerge from
what might otherwise be temporary economic difficulties.
7. OVERSEAS TOURISM
RE-OPENING
As noted in the Preface, opinions about overseas tourism re-opening comprised a critical
COVID-19-related issue at the time the survey questionnaire was drafted. However, it was an issue
for which new information had constantly been emerging and perhaps not yet totally absorbed by
the public. The end of the 14-day quarantine on non-essential inter-island travelers occurred in
mid-June, as this survey was going into the field, with final effects not yet evaluated.
Then on June 24, following completion of all surveys, news media reported a new State government
plan for re-opening, with target date August 1:
“ ”
All incoming trans-Pacific travelers who wish to opt out of Hawaii’s 14-day quarantine will
need to show proof that they had a negative molecular-based COVID-19 test result within 72
hours of their travel, Gov. David Ige announced at a press conference Wednesday at the
Daniel K. Inouye Airport. 11
Both because of the different and perhaps confusing variety of safety proposals, and also because it
seemed possible that such executive actions could be forthcoming, we asked only a limited number
of preliminary questions about tourism re-opening in this survey. Some of these questions may now
seem outdated following the announcement above, but they reflect public opinion at the time the
survey was done.
7.1 IF VISITORS WELCOME IN COMMUNITY

The first question related to tourism was: How much do you agree/disagree with this statement: “I do not
want tourists coming to visit my community right now.” Figure 7.1 indicates that 81% Agreed (most of
them “Strongly”),” and just 15% “Disagreed” (only a few of them “Strongly”). The remaining 4%
were uncertain or preferred not to answer.
FIGURE 7.1: IF RESIDENTS DO OR DON’T WANT

TOURISTS IN COMMUNITIES NOW
Agreement means do not want tourists in community now. Don’t Know/ Strongly
Percentages may not add exactly to 100% due to rounding error
No Answer Disagree
55% 27% 4% 12% 4%
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree

The question wording was taken from a series of

national surveys of American leisure travelers Hawai‘i residents as of
by the travel market research firm Destination
Analysts. The company asked this question mid-June were more
several different times and found gradually likely to oppose visitors
increasing – but still very limited – willingness
to see tourists in American communities in their communities
generally. As of this writing, the national
question was last asked over the week ending
(81%) than were
June 22, at which time just 15.5% said they residents nationally
wanted visitors; 56.8% said they did not; and the
remaining 27.7% were uncertain.12
(57%).
Thus, the small proportion of Hawai‘i residents willing to welcome tourists now is very similar to the
national figure, but Hawai‘i residents are more likely than people nationally to oppose having
visitors in their communities, and less likely to express uncertainty.
The types of residents most likely to say they “Strongly Agree” now is not the time for visitors in
their communities included the relatively young, Native Hawaiians, middle-low income households,
and households with several children at home.

STRONGLY AGAINST TOURISTS NOW
Pct. “Strongly Agree” Tourists Not Wanted in Community Now

Age 18-44 66%
55% Household Income $13K - $75K 62%

2+ Children in Household 62%
7.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR TOURISM RE-OPENING

Many different specific safety requirements have been proposed for re-opening overseas tourism.
Rather than try to list them all, we used the State’s description of new requirements for inter-island
travel to ask if they would be enough to re-open overseas tourism as well:
As of mid-June, 14-day quarantines on inter-island airline travel are being ended, but with some new safety
checks and procedures. These are described in the box below. In order to end the 14-day quarantines on people
coming from overseas (out of state), do you feel there should be fewer requirements than below, the same
requirements, or more requirements than for inter-island travel?
New Requirements for Inter-Island Travel: Boarding passengers are given thermal check for fevers.
People with fevers of 100.4ᵒ or more cannot fly. Boarding passengers must complete TSA forms about
health, home address, address on destination island in Hawai‘i. Anyone reporting symptoms must have
additional screening and/or testing. The information may also be used by the Dept. of Health if health
experts need to follow up or contact a traveler.
Figure 7.2 shows very few residents would like to see an overseas tourism re-opening with “Fewer
Requirements” than the new inter-island travel rules. Rather, 30% want even more requirements for
overseas arrival; 33% would apply the same inter-island safety protocols to overseas arrivals; and
another 33% want to see how well those inter-island procedures actually work before deciding about
more tourism re-opening.
FIGURE 7.2: WHETHER INTER-ISLAND TRAVEL RULES SHOULD

APPLY TO OVERSEAS ARRIVALS
Fewer More Don’t Know/
Requirements Requirements No Answer
4% 33% 30% 33% 0.5%
Same Requirements See How Inter-Island Requirements

Work Before Deciding
Demographic or other group differences for this opinion item were fairly muted, although
lower-income and/or Japanese respondents were relatively more likely (about 44% each) to say they
wanted “More Requirements.”
Only those who said they wanted travelers from overseas to have “More Requirements” than
inter-island travelers were then asked to say in their own words: What additional travel safety
requirements would you consider enough to lift the quarantine for tourists? Results were coded and the
main types of answers are shown in Table 7.2.13
TABLE 7.2: MOST COMMON ANSWER CATEGORIES, “MORE

REQUIREMENTS” DESIRED
Require negative test/Proof of immunity 36%
Test before they travel to Hawai'i 28%
Enforce quarantine/Verify information/ 13%
Provide a designated quarantine area
No tourists till a vaccine is available/No leisure travel 13%
Mandatory testing for all travelers; Rapid testing at airports 12%
*Because respondents could give more than one answer, percentages for all coded
categories could exceed 100%. The average respondent gave 1.5 answers before coding.
N (wtd) for this question was 181.
The dominant theme here clearly involved various types of virus testing protocols, though a small
percentage wanted to keep banning all leisure travel until a vaccine is in place. Demographic or other
differences should be treated cautiously due to small sub-sample sizes, but groups with larger
percentages wanting a continued travel ban included renters (26%), Hawaiian or “Other” ethnicities
(23%), households with children (21%), and those who were emotionally handling restrictions
“poorly” (38%).
7.3 TRUST IN STATE AND/OR TRAVEL

INDUSTRY TO RE-OPEN SAFELY
Public trust is a critical element of both public-sector and also private-sector responses to pandemics
and their economic aftermaths. We asked: Which of these statements comes closest to your opinion
regarding the State and the travel industry working together to re-open tourism in a way that gives Hawai‘i
residents the best practical level of safety from the Coronavirus?
The statements that were listed, and percentage
results for each, are shown in Figure 7.3. While a
substantial 32% trusted neither the State nor the
There is relatively more
travel industry, a slight majority (53%) trusted public trust in State
the State either along with or separate from the
industry, and 40% trusted the industry either
government than in the
along with or separate from the State. (The 40% travel industry to
figure includes just 6% trusting the travel
industry but not the State.)
re-open tourism safely
FIGURE 7.3: TRUST IN STATE AND INDUSTRY TO

RE-OPEN TOURISM SAFELY
Trust State and Travel Trust Travel Industry, Don’t Know/
Industry Working Together Not So Much the State No Answer
34% 19% 6% 32% 10%
Trust the State, Not So Don’t Trust Either

much the Travel Industry of Them
Percentages may not add exactly to 100% due to rounding error.
Relatively greater trust appeared to be a function of increasing age and higher incomes, while distrust
was concomitantly highest among younger people, lower income to some extent, certain ethnicities,
larger households, and those reporting “poor” emotional response to the lockdown:

TRUST NEITHER STATE NOR INDUSTRY
Pct. “Trusting Neither State nor Industry to Re-Open Safely”

Age 18-29 41%
Age 30-44 39%
Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian 40%
Total “Other” Ethnic 41%
32% Household Income $35 - $75K
Household Size 5+
37%
42%
2+ Children in Household 40%
Handle Restrictions “Poorly” 51%
There is a high correlation between the earlier question about trust in government to re-open the
overall economy safely (Section 2.2) with this question about trust to re-open tourism safely. Of those
who “Strongly Trust” government on the overall re-opening, 90% trusted the State (with or without
the travel industry) to re-open tourism safely as well. Of those who had “Little or No Trust” in
government on overall re-opening, 73% either trusted just the travel industry or else trusted neither
the State nor the industry on tourism re-opening.
7.4 IF TOURISM NEEDS “BIG CHANGES” OR NOT

The final tourism question was: Some people believe we need to make or plan big changes to the nature of
tourism here – such as how many visitors and what types we attract – before we lift the quarantine. Other
people believe it’s more important to get tourism going again and worry about changes later.
What do you think – make big changes first or just get tourism going again?
It’s likely that many people believe both should be done – i.e., get tourism going on what will likely
be a small scale at first, and simultaneously try to make some changes. However, in order to get a
“gut” response, respondents were deliberately forced to choose between “Big Changes First” and
“Just Get Tourism Going.”
Figure 7.4 shows 69% favored “Big Changes First;” 19% wanted to “Just Get Tourism Going;” and the
remaining 11% did not know or preferred not to answer. It is possible that some of these 11% felt the
answer should be “Both,” but the fact remains that more than two out of three respondents wanted
to see fundamental changes in the nature of tourism before it opens up again. (Again, note these
opinions were collected prior to the Governor’s announcement of a preliminary August 1 tourism
re-opening.)
FIGURE 7.4: IF TOURISM SHOULD JUST GET GOING OR MAKE BIG
CHANGES FIRST
Percentages may 11% Don't Know/

not add exactly to No Answer
100% due to
rounding error. 19% Just Get Tourism Going
Again for Now
Make/Plan Big Changes

69%
to Nature of Tourism First
In all groups, the percentages saying there should be “big changes” before tourism opening was
much higher than percentages saying we should “just get tourism going for now.” But the majorities
were larger among Native Hawaiians, lower-income residents, and to some extent renters
TABLE 7.4: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES – TOURISM NEEDS

“BIG CHANGES” FIRST
Pct. Wanting “Big Changes” in Tourism Nature Before Re-Opening
69% Income <$35K
Renters
81%
74%
7.5 EFFECT OF PERSONAL ECONOMIC

INVOLVEMENT ON TOURISM OPINIONS
It may seem intuitive to some that people whose livelihoods depend on tourism would have more
positive responses to the foregoing questions. We checked that possibility.
The survey’s closing demographic questions allowed us to allocate residents among these work
status categories as of February 2020: (1) self-employed or private-sector workers whose work
“depends mostly on tourists or the tourism industry;” (2) those whose work “depends mostly on local
customers or local businesses;” (3) those whose work depends about the same on both; (4)
government/non-profit workers; and (5) non-workers (unemployed, students, homemakers, retirees,
etc.).
Table 7.5 suggests the travel industry has a trust issue even for people whose livelihoods depend
primarily on tourists/tourism (or as much on tourism as on local business). Tourism-involved
workers answered much as did everyone else in terms of not wanting visitors in their communities
now, limited trust in the industry to re-open safely, strong majorities preferring “big changes” to
tourism before re-opening, and wanting even more requirements for overseas arrivals than for
inter-island travelers.
Sub-sample sizes become quite small for the follow-up question on what types of additional
requirements are desired, but those tourism workers who wanted “More Requirements” were even
more focused on virus screening tests for arriving overseas travelers than were other groups. This
suggests that concerns about personal safety among tourism workers may presently outweigh or
strongly temper their desire to return to work.
TABLE 7.5: TOURISM OPINIONS BY WORK DEPENDENCE ON

TOURISTS/TOURISM
Work
Work
Work Depends
Depends Not
Depends Equally on Work for Working
Total Mostly on
Mostly on Tourists/ Govt. or
Sample Local as of
Tourists/ Tourism Non-Profit
Business/ February
Tourism and Local
Customers
Biz
Don't Want Tourists Now
"Strongly Agree" or "Agree" 81% 77% 65% 80% 80% 85%
Trust State, Travel Industry,
or Both to Re-Open Safely?
Trust Both Working Together 34% 27% 29% 33% 36% 33%
Trust State, not Travel Industry 19% 11% 20% 21% 18% 23%
Trust Travel Industry, not State 6% 9% 14% 6% 7% 4%
Don't Trust Either of Them 32% 36% 25% 32% 31% 32%
Big Changes to Tourism
Before Re-Opening or Just
Get It Going for Now?
Big Changes First 69% 62% 71% 61% 71% 65%
Just Get It Going for Now 19% 22% 22% 26% 16% 20%
If Same Safety
Requirements for Overseas
as for Inter-Island Travel
Same Requirements 33% 31% 35% 44% 32% 34%
More Requirements 30% 33% 25% 28% 39% 30%
Sample Ns for Above 609 45 51 144 184 153
If Same Safety
Requirements for Overseas
as for Inter-Island Travel
Require negative test/Proof
36% 63% 31% 35% 37% 33%
of immunity
Test before they travel
28% 44% 46% 35% 24% 37%
to Hawai'i
Enforce quarantine/Verify
information/Provide a 13% 13% 0% 10% 23% 7%
designated quarantine area
No tourists till a vaccine is
13% 13% 15% 10% 14% 11%
available/No leisure travel
Mandatory testing for all
travelers; Rapid testing at 12% 6% 15% 13% 17% 11%
airports
Sample Ns This Question: 181 16 13 40 71 46
Column for “Don’t Know/Prefer Not to Answer” excluded for reasons of space.
8. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSIONS
During the months of March, April, and May 2020, Hawai‘i State and county governments requested
most members of the public to self-quarantine to protect themselves and others from the spread of
COVID-19. Restrictions were also imposed on institutions such as businesses and schools. This
survey has reviewed the dramatic effects these policies had on the incomes, behaviors, and attitudes
of Hawai‘i households, mainly to provide insight into the State’s and counties’ approach if another
round of restrictions is deemed necessary. Public opinion is not the only factor that policymakers
need to consider when making decisions about complex issues, but it should inform their approach.
Survey results like these can also educate experts and decision makers about the need for better
communication about their preferred policies.
The main findings are recapped below.
Slightly over half (54%) of residents did Residents most often (more than 50%) in
not yet feel safe going out. Residents their own words wrote that the overseas
mostly have some trust in government to tourism shutdown/quarantine, was what
keep everyone safe (61% “somewhat” and Hawaii “did right” in addressing
10% “strongly”). COVID-19. The second most common
response was staying at/working from
The majority of residents (88%) felt that home/lockdown/curfew (35%). When it
the restrictions that were put in place came to what Hawaii “could have done
between March to May were mostly better”, responses were more dispersed,
reasonable steps taken to protect public but the two rose to the top related to
health. Out of a list of 20 restrictions, the tourism. At about 17% each, respondents
vast majority of residents felt they were noted the need for even more restrictions
all worthwhile (at least 80% of residents on tourism and more effective tourist
felt 16 out of the 20 were “worth it”). The quarantine enforcement.
restrictions that were less likely to be
thought of as “worth it” (though still at
58% – 78%) included non-COVID
medical visits and restrictions on public
beaches, followed by closing shopping
centers/businesses and the 14-day
inter-island quarantine.
Most residents (67%) believe that Hawaii Two-thirds of households with children
will experience another wave of who had stayed home during the
COVID-19. The majority of residents pandemic thought at least one child had
(62%) said that the best indicator for been negatively affected in terms of
resuming restrictions is rising caseloads personal development or education.
for several weeks in a row. The majority Though the majority of respondents
of residents would be willing to repeat themselves (90%) handled the restrictions
the same 20 restrictions, though support well on an emotional level, about one in
levels to repeat the restrictions were five households were reported as having
generally lower than when asked someone with “serious personal emotional
whether the restrictions were “worth it.” problems” during the lockdown. More
There was significant reluctance to than one-third said a “possibly important
repeat restrictions that were considered medical issue” had been put off.
the least worthwhile as noted above.
Majorities either did not want or would In terms of financial challenges, 7% said
approach restrictions differently for someone in the household had
medical visit deferrals and the use of permanently lost their job, while 34% said
public beaches. There were similarly a household member had been
high responses to the closing shopping temporarily laid off and 28% was
centers/businesses and the inter-island concerned about someone being laid off or
quarantine. The survey gathered fired soon. Roughly 37% of households
suggestions from sub-samples about how had someone who had filed for
such restrictions could be done Unemployment Insurance benefits, with
differently. 31% having someone already receiving
them.
Some 81% of residents agreed they do not
want “tourists coming to visit my Demographic and other group
community right now.” And 69% think differences varied by question. In
that big changes need to be made the general, lower-income and other
nature of tourism first before lifting the marginalized groups were both the most
overseas quarantine, while 19% prefer to negatively affected and the most willing
just get tourism going again right away, to repeat the same restrictions. These
and the rest undecided. groups were also the least willing to see
tourism resume in its current form.
Young people were the least likely to say
they’re doing “Very Well.”
CLOSING THOUGHTS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
A central finding of this survey is that many members of the public have sophisticated, carefully
considered views of the State’s polices during lockdown. Respondents were largely supportive of
the State’s efforts, and most residents reported that they handled the lockdown restrictions well on
an emotional level. However, the feeling that children had been negatively impacted by the
lockdown was particularly strong and many noted that they would be unable to work if their
children could not return to child care or school.
Most residents demonstrate a willingness to continue these sacrifices. In particular, we note with
admiration the selflessness of many lower-income households that were more willing to repeat
restrictions despite the fact that they have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19.
Respondents have serious concerns when it comes to tourism. There is limited trust in the State and
industry working together and even less trust in the travel industry to re-open tourism safely.
Based on the survey results, we provide five suggestions that we hope will inform the State’s efforts
as the fight against COVID-19 continues.
Provide clear and transparent Continue to provide robust financial

communication about when – and why support to the unemployed and to
– lockdown restrictions will be Hawai‘i’s poorest residents. The ability to
re-established. Now that the State has earn money while in lockdown may make
made a commitment to re-open the local public compliance of self-quarantine
economy and a tentative commitment to efforts more likely. If the extra $600 in
welcome visitors again, it should provide federal unemployment insurance benefits
a clear idea of what conditions would ends in July, the State should find ways to
trigger another shutdown of businesses provide immediate financial relief as the
and tourism. We also suggest that current budget bill proposes.14 However,
policymakers communicate clearly with the level of relief must also be balanced
the public about COVID-19 testing with discouraging unemployed workers
policies for visitors and returning from job seeking and returning to work.
residents. The public is paying careful A recent U.S. study15 found that as a result
attention to these policies, and State of federal relief efforts, two-thirds of
officials should make every effort to unemployed workers are collecting
explain why certain policies are being benefits that are greater than their lost
implemented. This may improve earnings, and one-fifth are collecting at
compliance and general acceptance of least double their former wages.
new and continuing restrictions.
Re-open school and daycare facilities in Avoid a large-scale shutdown of

some capacity. One possible solution businesses. Rather than implementing
might be to split classes, so only a small large-scale shutdowns of local businesses,
number of students are working with the State may consider setting up an
their teacher at any one time, and to hire incentive system so businesses find it in
new employees to supervise children in their best interest to limit crowds, enforce
other rooms when they are not attending the use of masks and social distancing,
classes.16 and follow proper safety and sanitation
measures.
Allow for public consultation and input
whenever possible. We encourage State
officials to provide opportunities for the
public to give feedback about COVID-19
restrictions. Too often experts think of
public participation as a useful, but
inefficient, way to make policy. But the
public’s experiences under lockdown
provide a valuable source of local
knowledge. In many cases, when given
an opportunity to suggest changes to
lockdown policies, respondents provided
sensible advice about how the State
might make some restrictions easier to
follow.
9. ENDNOTES
¹ Notes about cross-tabulations: Ward Research generated two “banners” of cross-tabulations, in which most item results in this
report are compared across differences in 14 key demographic (e.g., age, ethnicity) or opinion groups (e.g., whether respondents
expect another virus wave). Readers may examine the banner cross-tabulations at publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. The
banners show statistically significant differences for individual response categories such as “Very Safe,” but not for combined
categories such as “Very or Fairly Safe.” Also, to facilitate calculation of statistical significance, the banners show weighted
totals but unweighted demographic percentages, and the percentages for different groups repeated in this report reflect these
unweighted numbers. Group differences selected for highlighting in this Table 2.1 – and in all subsequent report tables about
demographics – are based on our judgment about which differences are relatively largest and/or most informative. We
sometimes show results that may not be statistically significant or omit differences that technically may be statistically
significant but are still small or not particularly meaningful.
² https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/. Accessed July 4, 2020
³ Original verbatim responses to all “open-ended” questions (where respondents replied in their own words) were compiled by
Ward Research and may be reviewed at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. Additionally, percentages for less
frequent answer categories than shown in Table 3.1 or Table 3.2 can be found in the banner cross-tabulations also available at
https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu.
⁴ Residents’ heavy focus on tourists/tourism in answering both these questions is understandable, given that travel clearly was a
prime factor in spreading the virus around the world. However, in the early stages of the virus spreading in Hawai‘i, it was
actually more often a result of residents returning from elsewhere, rather than visitors, who comprised our initial cases.
⁵ A complete listing of all verbatim answers as originally recorded, prior to coding into categories, is available in an online appendix
at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. Additionally, other answer categories with lower frequencies are listed in the
banner cross-tabulations also available at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu.
⁶ Table 5.3 shows most frequent response categories after coding. Less frequently stated coded categories can be found in the banner
cross-tabulations available at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. Also, original verbatim comments are also available
at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu.
⁷ Note that this procedure necessarily results in smaller sub-sample sizes and potentially different top objections, because it excludes
“Don’t Do It Again” answers and categories. The purpose of this procedure was not to gain statistically accurate information,
but rather to get a moderately large number of people offering ideas about how to do some of the more objectionable things
differently next time
8
All verbatim comments are available at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. Additionally, Table 5.3 shows the most
frequent answer categories for the initial question specifying which things should be done differently. Less frequent general
answer categories are listed in the banner cross-tabulations also available at https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. The
banners do not include results for the second question (how things should be done differently) because of small numbers and
because these second answers are specific to the first ones.
9
We chose not to ask these people if they were “essential workers” or just did not want to stay home. As people were actually told to
stay home if at all possible, it is possible this 16% was an undercount due to reluctance to admit actual daily schedules.
¹⁰ There was a small sub-sample (N=14) of people with children at home during the lockdown who also said they felt they were
handling the lockdown “poorly” on an emotional basis. All of these people, 100%, felt at least one of their children was
negatively affected.
¹¹ E. Gill. June 24, 2020. “Ige: Hawaii’s Quarantine Will Be Lifted For Those Who Show Proof Of Negative COVID-19 Test.” Honolulu
Civil Beat.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/06/ige-hawaiis-quarantine-will-be-lifted-for-those-who-show-proof-of-negative-covid-19-test/
¹² Destination Analysts, “Local Community Behaviors & The Openness to Tourism: A Profile (as of June 2020).”
https://www.destinationanalysts.com/covid-19-insights/covid-19-shareable-media/#profile. Accessed June 22, 2020.
¹³ The coded answers boil down what were originally often quite extensive and thoughtful replies. These verbatim comments can be
reviewed https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu. Additionally, coded answer categories with small overall percentages
are part of the banner cross-tabulations in https://publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu.
¹⁴ SB126 SD1 HD1 CD1. https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=126&year=2020
15
Ganong, P., Noel, P., and Vara, J. (2020). US Unemployment Insurance Replacement Rates During the Pandemic. National Bureau of
Economic Research Working Paper. https://www.nber.org/papers/w27216.pdf
16
Emily Oster, “Here’s How to Reopen School This Fall,” Slate. July 2, 2020.
https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/how-to-reopen-schools-covid-this-fall.html Accessed July 6, 2020.
10. APPENDIX: SURVEY

QUESTIONNAIRE
This appendix includes a paper version of the full questionnaire as seen by the panel of respondents.
We added the final weighted percentage results for all “closed-ended” items (i.e., questions where
answers were chosen from the list of possible replies). For the “open-ended” items (i.e., where
respondents wrote in answers in their own words), we show percentages for the most frequent
general categories of answers, following coding of original verbatim responses by Ward Research.
Ward Research also generated longer appendices available online at

publicpolicycenter.manoa.hawaii.edu.
“Banner” cross-tabulations of most Detailed verbatim replies by respondents

survey questions by selected to the “open-ended” survey questions –
demographics (age, ethnicity, etc.) and by the ones to which they wrote in their own
a few opinion/attitudinal issues (e.g., answers rather than choosing among
whether respondents expect another options in the questionnaire itself. The
virus wave or how well they feel they’ve people who completed the survey often
handled the lockdown on an emotional took great time and care in these answers.
basis).
CORONAVIRUS SURVEY
Aloha, Hawai'i Panel member! The University of Hawai‘i Public Policy Center is conducting a
15-minute public opinion survey on how government and the people are dealing with the
Coronavirus (COVID-19). Participation is voluntary and responses will be kept confidential. As
always, all of your responses will be completely anonymous and will be reported only in
combination with the responses of others.
*If you have any questions about the research, please contact the Principal Investigator of the project, Dr. Colin Moore,
956-4237 or the research oversight office UH Committee on Human Studies, 956-5007.
Unless otherwise stated, all %s based on statewide weighted total N of 609. The %s may
not add perfectly to 100% due to rounding to nearest decimal.
An * mark means more than 0 but less than ½ of 1%.
1. What is your zip code?
2. On which island do you live?

Hawai‘i Island 12%
Kaua‘i 4%
Lāna‘i 0%
Maui 10%
Moloka‘i *%
O‘ahu 74%
3. Which of these categories includes your age?

18-29 21%
30-44 26%
45-54 16%
55-64 18%
65 or Older 20%
Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer 0%
4. Please indicate your gender?

Male 50%
Female 50%
Other/Non-Binary *%
5. Hawai‘i is starting to re-open. Right now, how safe do

you feel going out to places with many other people?
Very Safe 10%
Fairly Safe 36%
A Little Safe 38%
Very Unsafe 15%
Don’t Know or Prefer Not to Answer *%
6. As the re-opening continues, how much do you trust
State and local governments to keep everyone safe?
Strongly Trust 10%
Somewhat Trust 61%
Little or No Trust 28%
7. To the best of your knowledge, has Hawai‘i had higher rates

of Coronavirus cases than most U.S. states, about the same
as most states, or lower rates of cases than most states?
Higher Rates *%
About Same 4%
Lower Rates 94%
8. What did we do right in addressing the Coronavirus pandemic?

(Top Response Categories – More Than One Answer Per Respondent Possible)
Restricting travel/Shutting down tourism/14-day quarantine

for tourists/Enforcement of quarantine breakers 52%
Stay at home/Work from Home/Lockdown/Curfew 35%
Shutting down/Closing business, schools,
parks, beaches/Cancelling events, gatherings 24%
Masks/Requirements to wear masks 22%
Social distancing 14%
9. What could we have done better in addressing the Coronavirus pandemic?

Should have been quicker/Timeliness, took too long

to respond or make decisions/Started faster 17%
Reduce travel further/Shut down airport 17%
More effective quarantine enforcement/Track visitors 17%
More testing/Test better, quicker/Mandatory
state-widetesting/Antibody tests 14%
Open up the economy more quickly/Closed too long/
Give businesses guidelines earlier 10%
10. In general, were the actions taken in response to the Coronavirus by State and
county governments mostly reasonable steps to protect public health, or mostly
unreasonable violations of individual rights and liberties?
Mostly Reasonable Steps to Protect Public Health 88%
Mostly Unreasonable Violations of Individual
Rights and Liberties 7%
11. Here is a list of some things local governments did, or asked people here in Hawai‘i
to do, to fight the Coronavirus from March to May. For each of these, please indicate
whether you think it was worth doing or not worth doing.
Not
Worth It Worth It DK/NA
a. Closing public schools and childcare facilities 84% 12% 5%
b. Telling tourists not to come or stay in rooms 14 days 91% 6% 3%
c. Telling Hawai‘i residents returning from the mainland 91% 7% 3%
or elsewhere overseas to stay home 14 days
d. Sending tourists home if caught leaving rooms 93% 5% 3%
e. Requiring the use of masks in public 89% 6% 5%
f. Closing all shopping centers and many businesses 75% 20% 5%
g. Sharply restricting use of public beaches 65% 31% 4%
h. Telling people to stay 6 feet apart in public 90% 7% 3%
i. Closing theaters, gyms, and indoor sports events 88% 7% 6%
j. Stopping outdoor team sports 79% 14% 7%
k. Encouraging people to work from home 95% 4% 1%
l. Discouraging parties with family or friends 81% 12% 7%
m. Not allowing any sit-in dining at restaurants 83% 12% 5%
n. Requiring non-essential workers to stay home 83% 12% 5%
o. Closing all bars 88% 9% 3%
p. Telling people to always stay home if possible 90% 7% 3%
q. Requiring 14-day quarantine for interisland air trips 77% 19% 5%
r. Discouraging medical visits other than for 58% 30% 12%
the Coronavirus
s. Not allowing visitors into senior (kūpuna) living centers 90% 6% 5%
t. Shutting down vacation rentals 87% 8% 5%
12. Overall, on an emotional level, how well did you handle living with the
coronavirus restrictions?
Very Well 45%
Somewhat Well 48%
Somewhat Poorly 5%
Very Poorly 1%
13. Of all the things people here were asked to do to fight the Coronavirus,
whatwere the most important restrictions/rules that you or your household
found really hard to follow? Please write up to three answers, one rule per
answer. (If you thought none were hard to follow, write None on the first line.)
None/Nothing hard to follow 41%

Not able to visit family, friends/Not able to have visitors/
No parties, gatherings 20%
Staying home/confinement/curfew 19%
Having to wear mask/hard to breath with mask 18%
Closed beaches/Closed parks 13%
14. Do you think Hawai‘i will probably get another serious wave of the Coronavirus?
Yes 67%
No 15%
15. If there is an increase in Coronavirus cases again, when should the State
consider resuming some of the same restrictions?
When Cases Go Up for Several Weeks in a Row 62%
Wait to See If Hospitals Fill Up 12%
Wait for Other Clear Signs We Need Restrictions Again 13%
I Never Want the Same Restrictions Again 8%
15A. What other types of clear signs do you feel should be used as the basis for
resuming public restrictions? N (Wtd) = 79
Cases among local residents/Community spread/
Beyond small clusters 13%
Watch what’s happening elsewhere & impose restrictions
beforehand/CDC recommendations 12%
Should continue shutdown/Too early to remove restrictions 11%
Increase in inappropriate activities/large gatherings/
not following COVID-prevention 9%
16. If the Coronavirus does come back later, do you think Hawai‘i should do each of
these things again, not do them again, or do them but in some different way?
Don’t Do Different Other

Do Again Again Way DK/NA
a. Closing public schools and childcare facilities 66% 10% 22% 2%

b. Telling tourists not to come or stay in rooms 14 days 79% 4% 17% 1%
c. Telling Hawai‘i residents returning from the mainland 81% 5% 14% 1%
or elsewhere overseas to stay home 14 days
d. Sending tourists home if caught leaving rooms 82% 4% 14% 1%
e. Requiring the use of masks in public 89% 4% 6% *%
f. Closing all shopping centers and many businesses 51% 14% 34% 2%
g. Sharply restricting use of public beaches 47% 25% 27% 1%
h. Telling people to stay 6 feet apart in public 90% 3% 6% 1%
i. Closing theaters, gyms, and indoor sports events 77% 6% 17% 1%
j. Stopping outdoor team sports 69% 9% 21% 2%
k. Encouraging people to work from home 88% 3% 7% 2%
l. Discouraging parties with family or friends 69% 12% 18% 2%
m. Not allowing any sit-in dining at restaurants 61% 10% 28% 2%
n. Requiring non-essential workers to stay home 63% 11% 25% 1%
o. Closing all bars 79% 6% 14% 2%
p. Telling people to always stay home if possible 82% 4% 13% 1%
q. Requiring 14-day quarantine for interisland air trips 56% 20% 23% 2%
r. Discouraging medical visits other than for 43% 24% 32% 2%
the Coronavirus
s. Not allowing visitors into senior (kūpuna) living centers 78% 4% 16% 2%
t. Shutting down vacation rentals 80% 8% 10% 2%
16A. Here is a list of the items that you indicated we should do differently, if
there’s another serious Coronavirus outbreak. Which of these do you feel most
strongly about? Please choose ONE item only.
Main Choices (Ns of 25 or more):
Telling tourists not to come or stay in rooms 14 days
Discouraging medical visits other than for the Coronavirus
Closing all shopping centers and many businesses
Closing public schools and childcare facilities
Sharply restricting use of public beaches
16B. How should we do this differently next time?

Answers inappropriate to summarize here because
they are specific to above “Main Choices.”
17. How much do you agree/disagree with this statement: “I do not want tourists
coming to visit my community right now.”
Strongly Agree 55%
Agree 27%
Disagree 12%
Strongly Disagree 4%
18. As of mid-June, 14-day quarantines on inter-island airline travel are being

ended, but with some new safety checks and procedures. These are described
in the box below. In order to end the 14-day quarantines on people coming from
overseas (out of state), do you feel there should be fewer requirements than
below, the same requirements, or more requirements than for inter-island travel? ”
New Requirements for Inter-Island Travel: Boarding passengers are given

thermal check for fevers. People with fevers of 100.4o or more cannot fly.
Boarding passengers must complete TSA forms about health, home
address, address on destination island in Hawai‘i. Anyone reporting
symptoms must have additional screening and/or testing. The information
may also be used by the Dept. of Health if health experts need to follow up
or contact a traveler.
Fewer Requirements 4%
Same Requirements 33%
More Requirements 30%
See How Well Inter-Island Requirements Work
Before Deciding 33%
18A. What additional travel safety requirements would you consider enough to
lift the quarantine for tourists? N (Wtd) = 181
Require negative test/Proof of immunity 36%

Test before they travel to Hawai'i 28%
Enforce quarantine/Verify information/
Provide a designated quarantine area 13%
No tourists till a vaccine is available/No leisure travel 13%
Mandatory testing for all travelers; Rapid testing at airports 12%
1%
19. Which of these statements comes closest to your opinion regarding the
State and the travel industry working together to re-open tourism in a way that
gives Hawai‘i residents the best practical level of safety from the Coronavirus?
I Trust Both the State and Travel Industry

Working Together 34%
I Trust the State, Not So Much the Travel Industry 19%
I Trust the Travel Industry, Not So Much the State 6%
I Don’t Trust Either of Them 32%
1%
20. Some people believe we need to make or plan big changes to the nature of
tourism here – such as how many visitors and what types we attract – before we
lift the quarantine. Other people believe it’s more important to get tourism
going again and worry about changes later.
What do you think – make big changes first or just get tourism going again?
Make/Plan Big Changes to Nature of Tourism First 69%
Just Get Tourism Going for Now 19%
Don’t Know/Refused/Depends/Other Answer 11%
The next few questions are about the impacts of the Coronavirus epidemic on
your household.
21. Has your household experienced either a significant loss of savings or a

need to borrow money because of the Coronavirus situation?
Yes 31%
No 65%
22. Did you stay home most of the day when all the restrictions were in place?
Yes 84%
No 16%
23. Before the Coronavirus, did you usually stay home most of the day?
N (Wtd) = 514
Yes 26%
No 74%
24. Did one or more children under 18 in this household mostly stay home all day
when all the restrictions were in place
Yes 35%
No 5%
There Are No Children in This Household 60%
25. Do you feel the education or personal development of the child/children

has been negatively affected? If even one child was negatively affected,
please answer Yes. N (Wtd) = 398
Yes 66%
No 27%
26. Did any of the following things happen to you or other immediate household
members during March to May due to the Coronavirus or the restrictions?
If Yes, please indicate if this was yourself, another household member, or both
you and other household member.
Yes, Other Yes,
Yes,
No Household DK/NA
Self Member Both
a. Switched to working at home 40% 27% 17% 17% 5%

b. Big loss of income 62% 14% 13% 13% 3%
c. Serious personal emotional problems 70% 9% 7% 7% 7%
d. Put off some possibly important 63% 21% 7% 7% 2%
medical issue
e. Temporarily laid off from job 63% 14% 15% 15% 3%
f. Permanently lost job 88% 3% 3% 3% 6%
g. Worried may be laid off or permanently
66% 13% 13% 11% 6%
lose job soon
h. Filed for Unemployment Insurance 60% 16% 16% 7% 3%
benefits
i. Receiving Unemployment Insurance 65% 13% 13% 152% 4%
benefits
The next few questions are about the impacts of the Coronavirus epidemic on
your household.
27. Including yourself, what is the total number of people living in your
immediate household right now?
1: 12% 2: 27% 3: 21% 4: 17% 5+: 11%

28. How many people living in your immediate household are under 18?
N (Wtd) = 242 HH’s w/ Children
1: 52% 2: 29% 3: 15% 4+: 4%
29. How many are seniors (kūpuna) 65 or older?
0: 57% 1: 25% 2: 17% 3: 1%
30. As of February, were you:

Self-Employed (Working for Yourself) 12%
Employed by Private Business 33%
Employed by Nonprofit 9%
Employed by County, State, or Federal Government 24%
Not Working and Looking for Work 2%
Not Working and NOT Looking for Work
(includes retired, students, all others) 18%
31. As of February, did the business you worked for or ran yourself:
N (Wtd) = 334
Depend Mostly on Tourists or the Tourism Industry 19%
Depend Mostly on Local Customers or Local Businesses 56%
Depend about the Same on Both 17%
32. Which ONE of the following best describes your ethnic background?
Chinese 6%
Filipino 13%
Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian 23%
Japanese 23%
White or Caucasian 20%
Black/African American *%
Other or Mixed 14%
33. Does this household own or rent the place where you live?
Own 64%
Rent 31%
Some Other Arrangement 3%
34. What was the combined total 2019 before-tax income for all members of
your immediate household?
$0 to $24,999 6%
$25,000 to $34,999 6%
$35,000 to $49,999 10%
$50,000 to $74,999 18%
$75,000 to $99,999 16%
$100,000 to $149,999 18%
$150,000 to $199,999 10%
$200,000 or More 6%
That was the last question. Thank you very much for your time and thought!

UHPPC Hawaii Resident Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UHPPC Hawaii Resident Assessment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LIFE UNDER

John M. Knox, PhD

Colin Moore, PhD

Sherilyn Hayashida, PhD

JULY 14, 2020

Below are some of the more critical survey ﬁndings:

• State of Hawai‘i, Department of Health:

TABLE 2.1: Selected Group Differences – Perceived Safety in Public P8

TABLE 4.1: Selected Group Differences – Restrictions Seen as “Unreasonable” P14

TABLE 4.3: Selected Group Differences – Emotional Handling of Lockdown P18

TABLE 4.4: Restrictions Judged Hardest by Residents P19-20

TABLE 6.3: Selected Group Differences – Various Household Impacts P40-41

TABLE 7.5: Tourism Opinions by Work Dependence on Tourists/Tourism P49

FIGURE 2.1: Perceived Safety Going Out in Public as of Mid-June 2020 P6

FIGURE 2.2: Trust in State/Local Governments to Keep Public Safe P9

FIGURE 4.1: Whether Restrictions Seen as Mostly Reasonable/Unreasonable P13

FIGURE 5.1: Beliefs About Whether Another Wave Is Likely P22

FIGURE 5.2: Best Indication That Restrictions Should Be Re-Imposed P22

FIGURE 6.4: Selected Household Impacts from Virus or Restrictions P39

FIGURE 7.1: If Residents Do or Don’t Want Tourists in Communities Now P42

FIG 1.1 TIMELINE OF NEW HAWAI‘I CASES, INCLUDING SURVEY DATES

1.2 SURVEY METHODS

TABLE 1.1 TABLE ON KEY DEMOGRAPHICS,

2.1 OVERALL SENSE OF SAFETY

FIGURE 2.1: PERCEIVED SAFETY GOING OUT IN

10% 36% 0.3% 38% 15%

For all charts in this report, unless

TABLE 2.1: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES –

Pct. “Very” or “Fairly” Safe

Total Age 18-29 52%

46% Don’t Expect Another Wave 84%

2.2 TRUST IN GOVERNMENT TO KEEP

Though most residents did not yet feel safe going

FIGURE 2.2: TRUST IN STATE/LOCAL GOVERMENTS TO KEEP

TABLE 2.2: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES –

Pct. “Little or No Trust”

28% Household Size: 5+

3.1 BELIEFS ABOUT HOW HAWAI‘I HEALTH

FIGURE 3.1: BELIEFS ABOUT HAWAI‘I VIRUS RATES COMPARED TO

Demographic or other group diﬀerences for

3.2 WHAT HAWAI‘I DID RIGHT... AND WHAT WE

TABLE 3.1: MOST COMMON ANSWER CATEGORIES, “WHAT WE DID

TABLE 3.2: MOST COMMON ANSWER CATEGORIES, “WHAT WE

4.1 IF RESTRICTIONS GENERALLY

FIGURE 4.1: WHETHER RESTRICTIONS SEEN AS

Mostly Reasonable Steps to Protect Public Health Mostly Unreasonable Violations

TABLE 4.1: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES –

Pct. “Mostly Unreasonable”

4.2 REACTIONS TO SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS

Sharply restricting use of public Discouraging medical visits other than

FIGURE 4.2: RESTRICTIONS SEEN AS WORTH OR

Worth it Don’t Know/Didn’t Answer Not Worth It

Requiring use of masks in public Discouraging parties w/ family, friends

Encouraging people to work from home Stopping outdoor team sports

Telling people always to stay home if possible Closing public schools/childcare

93% 3% 5% 83% 5% 12%

91% 3% 7% 83% 5% 12%

Shutting down vacation rentals Requiring 14-day qurantine inter-island trips

87% 5% 8% 77% 5% 19%

91% 3% 6% 75% 5% 20%

Closing all bars Sharply restricting use of public beaches

88% 3% 9% 65% 4% 31%

90% 5% 6% 58% 12% 30%

TABLE 4.2: SELECTED GROUP DIFFERENCES –