What a great testament to the phenomenal utility of a blade design!
If it's a *primary* tool amongst a close-to-earth people, you can bet it's both highly functional and valued. I have a US Army 18" Ontario machete w/polymer (?) scabbard. It's a fantastic chopping tool - truly amazing - but i wouldn't want to chop a path through dense underbrush with it. If i needed to clear a spot out, make a shelter, and similar activities it's pretty awesome - though i'm sure the design can be improved (enter the parang pictured above!).
OK, please forgive the following but i gotta comment......
If this young man's time/distance is accurately measured (i don't think indigenous folks used a stop watch and/or map to calc travel rates), you can bet most of his energy definitely would *not* be spent chopping a pathway - more like slipping *through* the underbrush (and i'd bet it was done quite silently). Reporters/Editors really should spend more time doing more participant/observer study rather than how to sensationalize their story enbellished with misleading proof-texted photo's (i guess it all comes down to what sells...). Indigenous peoples wouldn't "carve (their) his way through apparently impenetrable undergrowth at a rate of two miles an hour.", it's too energy-expensive - too much effort. This idea of 'carving' a way through dense underbrush is a Western convention - novel as it is.
A former professor (Cultural Anthro) and dear friend lived in Melanesia (among other places there, he lived in the Highlands of Papua, New Guinea for ~12 years and learned to speak Witu) and "chopping" anything other than for wood processing, food preparation and ocassionally aggressive/opposing enemies was not happening.
OK, rant off and sincere apologies for any offended Parties.