Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=twar20
Australasian Journal of Water Resources
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/twar20
Supporting the design of useful and relevant
holistic frameworks for land use opportunity
assessment for indigenous people
Nichola Harcourt, Melissa Robson-Williams & Reina Tamepo
To cite this article: Nichola Harcourt, Melissa Robson-Williams & Reina Tamepo (2022)
Supporting the design of useful and relevant holistic frameworks for land use opportunity
assessment for indigenous people, Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 26:1, 116-130, DOI:
10.1080/13241583.2022.2031571
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2022.2031571
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 01 Feb 2022.
Submit your article to this journal Article views: 977
View related articles View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Supporting the design of useful and relevant holistic frameworks for land use
opportunity assessment for indigenous people
Nichola Harcourt
a
, Melissa Robson-Williams
b
and Reina Tamepo
c
a
Manaaki Whenua, Landcare Research, Landscape, Policy and Governance Team, Hamilton, New Zealand;
b
Manaaki Whenua – Landcare
Research, Landscape, Policy and Governance Team, Lincoln, New Zealand;
c
Scion, Te Ao Māori Research Group, Rotorua, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
Choices about how to use land are critical to eorts to manage water quality in Aotearoa-New
Zealand. Māori and non-Māori communities need decision-making frameworks that enable
their values and priorities to inform land use choices. However, few of the available frameworks
meet the needs of Māori communities. It is challenging to construct decision-making frame-
works that have true utility for both Māori and non-Māori land stewards because of dierences
in their relationships with the whenua (land), the wai (the water) and te taiao (the environ-
ment). Additionally, Māori may utilise dierent types and formats of data in their decision-
making from those traditionally encompassed by science-based frameworks. This paper aims
to help non-indigenous researchers understand the required development processes and
design features if a framework aimed at a broad audience is to have genuine relevance and
utility for indigenous users. To achieve this, we utilised a modied version of Cash et al.’s
Credibility, Salience and Legitimacy framework to evaluate a range of land use decision-making
frameworks. We discuss why science-based concepts of holism are not the same as those
embodied by a Māori worldview. We conclude that it is essential to co-develop frameworks in
genuine partnership with Māori.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 1 October 2021
Accepted 17 January 2022
KEYWORDS
Alternative land use
opportunities; holistic;
decision-making
frameworks; Māori
worldview
1. Introduction
Aotearoa-New Zealand (A-NZ) has grown its eco-
nomic wealth over the last 100 years largely on the
back of our land-based production of meat, wool,
milk, arable and horticultural crops. It was the sys-
temic dispossession of Māori land that enabled
A-NZ’s largely land-based capitalist economy
(Wynyard 2019). Over the last 30 years, there have
been rapid gains in both production and productivity
of farming and significant land use change towards
more intensive land uses (Pce 2015). A-NZ now finds
itself at a crossroad because the way land is used now,
though generating economic benefits, contributes to
multiple environmental harms (e.g. Larned et al. 2016;
Mfe/Statsnz 2018, 2019, 2020; Oecd 2019; Pce 2013).
Consequently there are growing demands on land
owners, including farmers and Māori entities, to bal-
ance the need for economic prosperity with environ-
mental, social, and cultural outcomes, meaning broad
consideration of the impacts of land use decision-
making beyond the boundaries of individual land par-
cels (e.g. Renting et al. 2009). The same challenge of
sustainable land use is a widespread international con-
cern. Thus the development of decision-making fra-
meworks to help compare the relative merits of
undertaking alternative land use activities is important
(Lilburne et al. 2020). Landowner’s decisions about
how to manage their land will be shaped according
to a complex mix of worldviews and aspirations (e.g.
beliefs, values, and knowledge), notions of identity,
and social norms, as well as material constraints such
as policies and regulations, and competencies (e.g.
Saunders 2016; Shove 2010; Spurling et al. 2013).
Given these differences, if a land use framework and
the information it produces is to be considered cred-
ible, relevant, and legitimate for users (Cash et al.
2003), it is therefore important that it can accommo-
date such a mixture of worldviews and different per-
spectives. Of particular relevance in A-NZ is how these
frameworks might be useful for Māori land use deci-
sion-making. So, while land use decisions have
undoubtedly been part of the problem, they are also
a pivotal part of the solution.
Māori, the indigenous people of A-NZ, have
a particular relationship with the whenua (land) and,
indeed, with the natural world, as encapsulated by Te
Ao Māori (the Māori worldview), where people are
seen as a part of, and genealogically connected to, the
natural world, and interconnectedness and holism are
fundamental concepts. When European settlers colo-
nised A-NZ in the early 19th Century, they brought
with them an imperial mindset and values very differ-
ent from those of the Indigenous Māori. There was
rapid clearing of forests, extensive conversion of nat-
ural habitats into exotic pastoral grasslands, including
extensive drainage of wetlands (Moewaka Barnes and
CONTACT Melissa Robson-Williams robson-williamsm@landcareresearch.co.nz
AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES
2022, VOL. 26, NO. 1, 116–130
https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2022.2031571
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or
built upon in any way.
Mccreanor 2019). Diverse natural landscapes were
transformed into exotic agricultural production
lands, where tribal collectives were fragmented into
individualised land titles reflecting new types of for-
eign ownership and production. This ‘Eurocentric’
way of interacting with the land was at odds with Te
Ao Māori and resulted in physical, spiritual, mental,
and physiological disconnection of Māori from their
whenua and taiao (environment). It also resulted in
economic disadvantage. The Māori economy was
thriving during the period 1845–1860 (Hargreaves
1959), between signing of the Treaty, and the onset
of the land wars that were driven by the colonial
government to secure land for capitalist expansion.
The land wars alienated Māori from their lands and
resulted in the oppression that tipped the power bal-
ance in the favour of the colonialists (Moewaka Barnes
and Mccreanor 2019), creating the status quo situa-
tion. During the heyday of Māori agriculture, when
they were still in possession of most of their lands and
therefore the most productive soils, the Māori econ-
omy was focussed on export trading networks (e.g.
selling goods to Australia, China and the US), and in
1854–1855 it was widely reported that this revenue
was the economic ‘life blood’ of the country (Petrie
2002).
Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi (the
Treaty) is a foundational document for A-NZ, and is
based on a set of principles (participation, partnership,
and protection) signed in 1840 by the Crown (British
Monarchy) and iwi/hapū indigenous Māori tribes.
However, since its inception, there have been multiple
violations of the Treaty, and since the Waitangi
Tribunal Act was passed in 1975, a raft of ‘Treaty
claims’ (over 1000) have been lodged, and heard, in
order to rectify historic and contemporary breaches of
the Treaty. This long process has resulted in many
claims being compensated by both land and financial
redress, providing some economic basis and return of
small amounts of land for many Māori groups.
However, the total area of land currently in Māori
ownership remains small (~<5% of total A-NZ
27 million ha (Statsnz 2021)), in over 27,000 separate
governance titles, and land blocks range from 10 ha to
thousands of hectares. Much of the present Māori land
(~>70%) is classified as hill and mountainous country,
and a significant part of it is marginal and undeve-
loped, and 13% of total Māori land is in mature pine
plantations (Pinus Radiata) nearing harvest (Cottrell
2016). Thus, there are land use decisions to be made.
In A-NZ the Māori economy has been valued at
$68.7 billion based on total assets (Berl 2021), with
$23b of the Māori asset base invested in the primary
sector and about one-quarter of the 12,000 current
Māori authorities directly engaged in agribusiness
(Berl 2021) with business principally across farming,
fisheries, forestry and horticulture. This also
represents 10% of A-NZs total agricultural exports
(Berl 2021). Many Māori organisations are therefore
exploring opportunities for diversification into a range
of land uses and enterprise, to grow prosperity and
meet a range of values.
Supporting and informing land use change deci-
sions on Māori-owned land is therefore critical both to
meet goals for sustainability and to achieve Māori
aspirations.
Over recent times we have also seen a shift in
policy, science, and business domains towards more
holistic decision-making frameworks.
Examples include: developing land and water policy
based on frameworks integrating social, economic,
environmental and cultural values (Norton and
Robson 2015; Robson 2014); the current government’s
Living Standards Framework that assembles informa-
tion on well-being and health across 12 domains
under four main capitals (Natural, Social, Human
and Financial/Physical) (Treasury 2019); ecosystem
services and valuing nature’s value to people (Mea
2005; Pascual et al. 2017); and triple or quadruple
bottom line reporting in business (Sbn 2019; Sbn/
Mfe 2003).
Given the growing recognition of the importance of
Māori land-owners and their land use choices, robust
and legitimate frameworks for Māori decision-makers
are urgently needed. This paper pilots a way of asses-
sing a range of currently used decision-making frame-
works, including examples of holistic frameworks, to
determine their suitability and relevance for Māori
land-owners. Although limited in its scope, the results
of the study increase understanding of what constitu-
tes credibility, relevance and legitimacy (after Cash
2003) for a Māori audience, and insights from the
pilot have been used to suggest guidance for non-
Māori researchers/scientists who are developing fra-
meworks that are intended to inform Māori land-use
decision making.
2. Methods
2.1. Developing the assessment criteria
Research suggests that potential users of [scientific or
technical] information are more likely to trust and act
on new knowledge when it is considered relevant
(originally termed salient), credible, and legitimate
(Cash et al. 2003; Matson, Clark, and Andersson
2016; Schuttenberg and Guth 2015). The credibility,
relevance, and legitimacy (CRELE) framework (Cash
et al. 2003) has also been used to link Indigenous and
local knowledge sources to action (e.g. Schuttenberg
and Guth 2015; Wheeler and Root-Bernstein 2020).
Drawing from an existing scholarship on kaupapa
Māori approaches, mātauranga Māori, Māori values,
and research linking Indigenous Knowledge to action,
AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 117
we drew out concepts relating to the CRELE dimen-
sions from a Māori perspective (Table 1). Closely
connected concepts were grouped together to form
three themes for each dimension of the CRELE frame-
work. We have used this test framework to evaluate
the effectiveness of several decision-making frame-
works to provide information that is meaningful and
useful for Māori.
2.2. Choosing decision-making frameworks for
assessment
A number of frameworks have been developed to sup-
port land use decision-making. Earlier approaches
focussed on matching biophysical conditions of the
land to potential productivity and economic returns
whereas more recently decision-making frameworks
have become more multi-dimensional (Lilburne et al.
2020). In this study, frameworks are broadly cate-
gorised based on their original design purpose, criteria,
and underpinning philosophy. The categories, going
from a ‘narrow’ focus towards holism, are: 1) frame-
works based on biophysical capability (e.g. Lynn et al.
2009); 2) frameworks based on biophysical suitability
(Larned et al. 2017; Lilburne et al. 2020; Mcdowell et al.
2018); 3) frameworks to support multi-criteria analysis
and decision-making (e.g. Renwick et al. 2017); 4) eco-
system services/well-being-based frameworks (May
et al. 2018; Teeb 2018); and 5) frameworks that are
process-based and work with the relevant decision-
makers to derive decisions (Awatere and Harcourt
2020; Morgan et al. 2021).
For the pilot we selected an example framework
from each category (Table 2) to evaluate. Four of
these frameworks are science-based, and the fifth is
kaupapa Māori-based. The example frameworks were
chosen through purposive theoretical sampling,
meaning that they were chosen for theoretical and
not statistical reasons (Seawright and Gerring 2008;
Shareia 2016). The example frameworks chosen were
considered typical of the category by the authors and
are published with sufficient details to enable the
assessment.
2.3. Assessing the decision-making frameworks
The selected land use decision-making frameworks
(Table 2) were assessed against the nine criteria of
our modified CRELE assessment framework
(Table 1) to evaluate how useful the frameworks are
for Māori land use decision-making. Assessing the
degree to which each framework met the modified
CRELE criteria was a subjective rating process, and
potentially subject to individual bias. Therefore, we
took the approach described below to reduce indivi-
dual bias (after Small et al. 2021), and to ensure that
analysts were providing comparable rankings.
Table 1. Essential dimensions of credibility, relevance, and legitimacy for Māori.
Credibility Relevance Legitimacy
Information and knowledge are considered
accurate by all knowledge partners and the
sources of the information are considered
authoritative and trustworthy (Schuttenberg
and Guth 2015; Wheeler and Root-Bernstein
2020)
Produces information relevant to Māori,
including geographical and scale (Dunn and
Laing 2017; Schuttenberg and Guth 2015;
Wheeler and Root-Bernstein 2020), and
intergenerational decision-making (Morgan
et al. 2021)
There is trust in the process used to generate the
information, and the information and
knowledge are seen as inclusive, fair and
unbiased (Schuttenberg and Guth 2015;
Wheeler and Root-Bernstein 2020)
Māori cultural norms and knowledge are
embedded in the research as the legitimate
modus operandi (Barnes 2009; Hudson and
Russell 2009; Kerr 2012; Morgan et al. 2021),
and rigorous research methods that use
appropriate tikanga (customary protocols) and
embed cultural sensitivity, cross-cultural
reliability are used (Cram et al. 2002; Kerr
2012).
Embeds a Te Ao Māori world view (Morgan et al.
2021), recognising reciprocity (tau utuutu) and
kinship connection between people and
nature (Durie 2012; Harmsworth et al., 2013a;
Harmsworth, Awatere, and Pauling 2013b;
Lyver et al.,2017), and is holistic, covering
a range of values including wairuatanga
(spirituality) (Awatere and Harmsworth 2014)
Māori are recognised as partners (Hudson and
Russell 2009), and have control over the
knowledge and research through mana
Motuhake (self-determination), rangatiratanga
(right to exercise authority), tino
rangatiratanga (absolute sovereignty) (Irwin
1994; Kerr 2012; Smith 2021). Research is of
benefit to Māori (Barnes 2009), and does not
serve to perpetuate or compound inequities
(Cash and Belloy 2020)
The researcher has appropriate relationships,
cultural know-how, professional research
knowledge and experience (Kerr 2012)
Allows for different prioritisation of indicators
(Morgan et al. 2021), to reflect a diversity of
values between groups
Embeds whanaungatanga (kinship) and
whakawhanaungatanga (process of
establishing connections), and understands
cultural underpinnings of relationships,
genealogy and collective responsibility (Kerr
2012; Smith 2021)
Table 2. Frameworks assessed.
Number Category Example framework
Key
references
1 Biophysical
feasibility
frameworks
Land Use Capability Lynn et al.
2009
2 Biophysical
suitability
frameworks
Land Resource Circle Lilburne
et al.
2020
3 Multi criteria
decision making
frameworks
Next Generation Systems Renwick
et al.
2017
4 Ecosystem Service
based
framework
The Economics of
Ecosystems and
Biodiversity Framework
Teeb 2018
5 Process-based
frameworks
The Māori land use
opportunities
assessment tool
Awatere
and
Harcourt
2020
118 N. HARCOURT ET AL.
Four independent analysts (including one author
RT) separately assessed each framework based on
published descriptions, and drew pertinent informa-
tion from these descriptions in order to score each
framework for each CRELE criteria. Each analyst has
genealogical connections (whakapapa) to different iwi,
and thus are assessing the frameworks from diverse
tribal perspectives, as well as from the perspective of
their own cultural experiences of being Māori. To rate
the perceived ability of each framework to be applied
to local contexts, the analysts thought about using
them within their own tribal areas (takiwā).
The analysts used a three-point scale to score each
CRELE criteria each with descriptive anchors:
0 = the criteria were not met in the data describing
the project
1 = the criteria were partially or somewhat met in
the data describing the project
2 = the criteria were met in the data describing the
project.
The analysts then compared their ratings for each
of the criteria for each framework. If their indepen-
dent ratings for individual elements differed by more
than one scale point, analysts discussed and reconsid-
ered the original descriptions and reached agreement
(within one scale point) for that criterion. The mean of
the four analysts’ ratings was taken to provide the final
rating for each criterion. For each framework, an
average score was calculated for the overall
framework.
The main methodological weakness in this pilot
study is the number of assessments. The findings
could be considerably strengthened through extending
the assessment to a greater number of analysts from
different iwi and a greater number from within the
same iwi.
2.4. The land use decision-making frameworks
Each land use decision making framework evaluated is
briefly described below. This description along with
the supporting publications were supplied to the
analysts.
Framework: 1 – Land Use Capability
The Land Use Capability (LUC) classification system
is a national land resource mapping assessment and
classification approach (Lynn et al. 2009) using national
standards that can be applied at regional and local (e.g.
farm) levels. A physical resource inventory groups land
into homogenous areas and classifies each parcel of land
(at a scale) into LUC according to physical limitations,
giving its long-term potential for sustainable agricul-
tural production (Figure 1). It can therefore be used as
an assessment tool for land versatility and land suitabil-
ity (e.g. to grow and sustain horticulture or cropping,
and maintain pastoral productivity and forestry). There
are eight main LUC classes, each divided into subclasses
based on the dominant biophysical limitation (e.g. ero-
sion susceptibility, wetness, soil characteristics, and cli-
mate). This classification system provides guidance for
understanding the biophysical feasibility of any land use
activity, to promote land resource sustainability and soil
conservation. It also gives recommendations for land
management such as unsuitable land uses. The LUC
mapping system has been used to develop the New
Zealand Land Resource Inventory at 1:50,000 for A-NZ.
Framework: 2 Land Resource Circle
Figure 1. Land use capability classification (Lynn et al. 2009).
AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 119
The Land Resource Circle (LRC) (Lilburne et al.
2020) framework supports land-use decision-making
by providing information on the impacts of land use
decisions beyond the boundaries of individual land
parcels (Figure 2). The framework is based on the
relationship between soils and soil function and eco-
system services. The LRC uses soil, land and climate
information sourced from empirical data, modelled
outputs, and expert knowledge to characterise
a range of biophysical and management information
for different land uses. These are used to derive a series
of scores for each soil x land use combination with
respect to soil-based ecosystem services. This allows
the user to explore potential trade-offs between eco-
system services for different land uses and different
soils. Lilburne et al. (2020) provide a working example
of how the framework can be applied to individual soil
typologies by swapping out the soil placed at the centre
of the figure.
Framework 3–Next Generations Solutions
Assessment Framework
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) has
been widely used in investigating sustainability
decisions (e.g. Alrøe et al. 2016; Bausch, Bojórquez-
Tapia, and Eakin 2014). MCDM is well suited to
land use decision-making because it allows simul-
taneous consideration of multiple domains (e.g.
financial, social, and environmental). The Next
Generation Systems (NGS) assessment framework
(Renwick et al. 2017) was developed to enable users
to assess novel land uses against criteria in six key
domains: financial, environmental, regulation, mar-
ket factors, social well-being, and knowledge base
(Figure 3). These criteria were derived from the
literature, scientific opinion, and verification by
those involved in land management (Renwick
et al. 2017). The NGS framework acknowledges
that the information needed to consider a new
Figure 2. Land resource circle (Lilburne et al. 2020).
120 N. HARCOURT ET AL.
land use will vary between land-owners, so it allows
the selected criteria to be weighted depending on
the individual situation.
The relative weighting of the sub-criteria within the
six key domains helps the user understand how alter-
native land use opportunities might fit with their
needs. Each sub-criteria (e.g. community acceptability,
quality of life) can be ranked according to perceived
performance using a simple one (poor) to five (strong)
Likert scale. Where actual performance figures can be
obtained for sub-criteria (for example financial return/
hectare) this information can be utilised in the frame-
work alongside the Likert ratings assigned to other
sub-criteria.
Framework 4- Ecosystem Services
The ecosystem services (ES) framework was first
developed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(Mea 2005), who defined ES as ‘the capacity of
natural processes and components to provide
goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly
or indirectly’. The ES framework comprises four
categories on which humans rely: provisioning ser-
vices (e.g. wild foods); cultural services (e.g. cultural
heritage values); regulating services (e.g. erosion
control by plants); and supporting services (e.g. soil
formation). The development of an ecosystem ser-
vices (ES) approach helped broaden the scope of
land opportunity assessment by looking beyond
soil properties, and seeking to identify the links
between human activities, their impacts on ecosys-
tems, and the services provided by these same eco-
systems to humans.
A recent evolution of the ES concept relevant to
land use decisions is the Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity AgriFood (TEEB) framework (Eigenraam
et al. 2020; Teeb 2018). The framework includes the
whole agri-food system in its analysis, from support-
ing ecosystems to productive farms, including inter-
mediaries and consumers, and includes all significant
externalities along these value chains (Figure 4). It is
an integrated approach that enables decision-makers
to articulate and explore the full range of visible and
invisible connections that agricultural and food sys-
tems have with humans and the environment in eco-
agri-food systems. The framework is intended to be
applied in a four-phase process (Eigenraam et al.
2020), and could be used to compare different land
use options for their impacts throughout the agri-food
system.
The framework is based on the principles of uni-
versality, comprehensiveness, and inclusion (i.e. sup-
porting multiple assessment approaches), and the
designers of the framework consider these three guid-
ing principles result in a framework design and
approach that can represent a holistic perspective of
any food system (Eigenraam et al. 2020).
Framework 5 – The Māori land use opportunities
assessment tool
Figure 3. Domains and examples of sub-criteria of the next generations solutions assessment framework (Renwick et al. 2017).
AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 121
The Māori Land Use Opportunities Assessment
(MLUOA) (Awatere and Harcourt 2020) is a process
tool by which decision makers evaluate potential land
uses against a set of high level ngā pou herenga (core
values and principles) and mauri-based criteria (vital-
ity and energy of the natural environment linked to
human well-being) (Hainsworth et al. 2016;
Harmsworth and Tipa 2009; Morgan 2007; Tipa and
Teirney 2006). The framework takes a kaupapa Māori
approach (by Māori, for Māori and with Māori using
an approach that validates Māori cultural values,
beliefs, knowledge and worldviews (Rautaki undated))
and uses appropriate tikanga to create, with the invol-
vement of decision-makers, a range of useful indica-
tors to assess land use opportunities, ranking each
land use in terms of its ability to meet defined core
values and Māori aspirations.
The three generic core values and principles used
are: kaitiakitanga, expressing tikanga Māori-led sus-
tainable resource management; manaakitanga, which
reflects reciprocity of actions to the environment, the
wider community, iwi/hapū, and other people; and
whakatipu rawa, which concerns retention and growth
of Māori-owned resources and effective use of these
resources for beneficiaries and future generations.
Table 3 shows some example indicators developed
for these core values and principles.
After agreeing on the indicators, the decision-makers
assign qualitative rankings of low, medium or high for
each indicator based on information provided to the
group from both science and mātauranga Māori (Māori
knowledge) sources. It should be noted, however, that
in this case, mātauranga Māori is the main knowledge
used, and science-based knowledge is secondary and
used within the kaupapa Māori framework. Kaupapa
Māori provides flexibility to accommodate different
types of indicators deemed relevant by end-user groups,
and prioritise and interpret the indicators accordingly.
Figure 4. Elements of the TEEB evaluation framework (Teeb 2018).
Table 3. Kaitiakitanga, Manaakitanga and Whakatipu rawa
indicators.
Indicator Description
Wāhi tapu/taonga (Significant
sites)
The mauri of significant sites
Mahinga kai (Food-gathering
areas)
The mauri of food-gathering areas
Nga otaota Māori (Indigenous
biodiversity)
The mauri of culturally significant
plants
Ngā wai tipuna (Significant
waterways)
The mauri of culturally significant
waterways is enhanced
Education goals Mātauranga Māori is enhanced
Whanaungatanga (Iwi/hapū
outcomes and Whānau Hapori
outcomes)
Mauri of the iwi/hapū is enhanced,
Mauri of the wider community is
enhanced
Partnerships Inter-iwi and intra-community
commercial relationships are
maintained
Intergenerational Equity Equitable distribution amongst
beneficiaries and future
generations
Whakapūmautanga Long-term retention and
accumulation of fixed assets
Labour Full Time Equivalents A balanced approach for managing
labour
122 N. HARCOURT ET AL.
3. Results
The science-based selected frameworks generally sit
along a continuum from a narrow focus through to
more holistic approaches (1 through to 4 in Table 1),
in contrast to the kaupapa Māori assessment tool. The
results in Table 4 show that although the more holistic
science frameworks perform marginally better than
narrowly focussed frameworks, both performed
poorly against the modified CRELE assessment cri-
teria, scoring less than 20% of the maximum possible
score. The science-based frameworks were assessed to
produce some information that was relevant to Māori,
but not usefully expressed for Māori. Further, they
performed very poorly when assessed for credibility
and legitimacy. The process-based MLUOA tool was
the only framework that was considered to meet all the
CRELE assessment criteria well.
4. Discussion
Frameworks that are credible, relevant, and legitimate
for Māori decision-makers are urgently needed, yet
our research suggests a lack of options at present,
and indicates the challenges for the science sector in
developing, culturally appropriate frameworks. The
four science-based frameworks undoubtedly produce
highly useful information for a broad audience and are
recognised by academic peers and non-indigenous
groups as being scientifically and technically robust.
Yet this evaluation, although just a pilot, suggests the
science-based frameworks do not translate easily for
Māori decision-makers. We discuss each of the three
dimensions of the modified CRELE framework below
and use these preliminary findings to suggest guidance
for developing credible, relevant, and legitimate tools
for Māori decision-making.
4.1. Credibility
The dimensions of credibility revolve around the
knowledge and sources of knowledge being accurate,
authoritative, and credible, where cultural norms and
knowledge are embedded, and the credentials of those
developing the framework are reliable and trusted.
The CRELE dimensions must be considered through
the lens of the user (Cash et al. 2003). They are not
inherent properties of the information. The knowl-
edge that is included and the accuracy of that knowl-
edge are features of credibility common to both
science and indigenous audiences (e.g. Heink et al.
2015; Schuttenberg and Guth 2015; Wheeler and
Root-Bernstein 2020). In this pilot study, the shortfall
of the LUC, LRC, NGS, and TEEB frameworks is that
they have been primarily designed to accommodate
information largely from a scientific or non-
indigenous perspective. While the science knowledge
may be considered accurate and its source valid and
authoritative, the frameworks have difficulty in incor-
porating other types of knowledge. None of them
included any mātauranga Māori, and therefore, for
a Māori audience, all knowledge sources have not
been considered. The high assessment score given to
the MLUOA tool clearly suggests that credible frame-
works for Māori decision-making need to have Māori
concepts and knowledge embedded from the start.
Mātauranga Māori is a knowledge system with its
own mana and autonomy and it encompasses Māori
knowledge, worldviews, philosophy, values, ethics,
and qualitative and quantitative observations
(Harmsworth, Awatere, and Pauling ; Hikuroa 2017),
and is underpinned by values. So
embedding mātauranga Māori means letting it influ-
ence the very construction of the framework, as well as
its use. It is not a case of simply cherry-picking bits of
Table 4. Evaluation of credibility, relevance and legitimacy of land use decision-making frameworks for Māori.
Dimensions of CRELE framework interpreted for Māori end users
Land use decision-making
frameworks
LUC LRC NGS TEEB MLUO
Credibility Information and knowledge are considered accurate by all knowledge partners and the sources of the
information are considered authoritative and trustworthy.
0 0 0 0 2
Māori cultural norms and knowledge are embedded in the research as the legitimate modus operandi and
rigorous research methods that use appropriate tikanga and embed cultural sensitivity, cross-cultural
reliability are used.
0 0 0 0 2
The researcher has appropriate relationships, cultural know-how, professional research knowledge and
experience.
0 0 0 0 2
Relevance Produces relevant information to Māori including geographical and scale and intergenerational decision-
making.
1 1.5 1.5 1.5 2
Embeds a Te Ao Māori world view recognising reciprocity and kinship connection of relationship between
people and nature and is holistic, covering a range of values including wairuatanga (spirituality).
0 0 0 0 2
Allows for different prioritisation of indicators to reflect diversity of values between groups. 0 2 2 2 2
Legitimacy There is trust in the process used to generate the information, and the information and knowledge is seen
as ‘inclusive, fair and unbiased’.
0 0 0 0 2
Recognition of Māori as partners in developing the framework and Māori to have control over the
knowledge and research through mana Motuhake (self-determination), rangatiratanga (right to
exercise authority), tino rangatiratanga (absolute sovereignty). Research is of benefit to Māori and does
not serve to perpetuate or compound inequities.
0 0 0 0 2
Embeds whanaungatanga (kinship) and whakawhanaungatanga (process of establishing connections)
and understands cultural underpinnings of genealogy and collective responsibility.
0 0 0 0 2
AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 123
Māori knowledge and inserting them into a science-
based framework where they lose their integrity and
sense of origin (e.g. Broughton et al. 2015; Hikuroa
2017). Put simply, if research does not reflect Māori
realities, it cannot realise the expected outcomes and
aspirations of Māori (Durie 2004; Smith 2017).
The scale of the knowledge informing the decision-
making (e.g. generic versus local knowledge) is
another important consideration for building credibil-
ity. Mātauranga Māori is contextually bound, it pro-
duces relevant and meaningful knowledge typically
grounded by local experiences and relationships
(Lambert 2014). The implication of this is that the
same framework cannot simply be applied every-
where. To produce credible information, frameworks
must be refreshed and adapted each time they are used
in a new context. This highlights a particular area of
tension between the science and the mātauranga
Māori knowledge systems. The science frameworks
seek the goal of universal applicability. Indeed, in the
development of the TEEB framework, the authors
claim that their values of inclusion and comprehen-
siveness make their framework universally applicable
(Eigenraam et al. 2020). However, in mātauranga
Māori, knowledge of and protocols for developing
and using knowledge are inherently place-based and
cannot simply be imported from elsewhere. In fact, for
some, even the use of the term mātauranga Māori is
a misnomer, as the knowledge is developed and held at
various levels, mātauranga ā-iwi (held at tribal
level), mātauranga ā-hapū (sub-tribe knowledge and
expertise), and mātauranga ā-whānau (family-based
knowledge and expertise) (Broughton et al. 2015).
Being able to adapt frameworks locally builds cred-
ibility in other ways. Māori land often has complex
governance structures and multiple ownership, as well
as a raft of barriers that limit the uptake of new land
use opportunities. At the heart of these barriers lies the
need for Māori to conform to policies and processes
that have been imposed upon them by colonisation,
and the pervading consequences of land loss that sepa-
rated people from their whenua (Moewaka Barnes and
Mccreanor 2019). Barriers can include: no or poor
governance of land blocks (e.g. 50% of all Māori land
has no management structure, or at least, kaitiakitanga
as shared amongst whānau and hapū is not recognised
within an advanced colonial system), disconnection
from owners and other blocks, lack of capacity and
knowledge to inform decision-making and implement
actions, difficulties in raising capital and investment for
development and new opportunities, few advisors with
an understanding of Māori values and perspectives,
limited productive potential of marginal land, and the
requirement to make collective decisions (Harcourt
and Awatere 2021). Given the collective nature of
Māori decision-making, the decision-making processes
need to be inclusive, build capacity and understanding,
and meet the informational needs of many. A flexible
framework helps deliver this.
The credentials of those developing and employing
the framework is an important aspect of credibility
(Wilson, Mikahere-Hall, and Sherwood 2021) and
the pilot study findings support this. Beyond having
appropriate research knowledge and experience, cred-
ibility is built by having the appropriate cultural know-
how and appropriate relationships (Kerr 2012),
including those with sufficient mana and respect to
work with and be trusted by Māori decision-makers.
Smith (2015) describes a researcher having credibility
in the science paradigm as being judged by formal
institutional training of an individual, and contrasts
this with a cultural notion of credibility that is
informed by virtue of the multiple positions Māori
hold. This reflects the collectivist and relational
approach that is required within kaupapa Māori if an
output is to be deemed credible (Smith 2021).
4.2. Relevance
The critical dimensions of relevance are the spatial and
temporal scales of information, flexibility, and the
generation of information that reflect Māori values.
The science-based frameworks evaluated in this study
were considered to produce some relevant informa-
tion for Māori decision-makers in terms of the char-
acteristics of land, geographical location, scale, and
coverage of Māori or tribal land, and the more holistic
frameworks (LRC, NGS and the TEEB) had flexibility
to allow for different priorities to be considered that
were useful for intergenerational decision-making.
However, none of them scored highly for the other
dimensions of relevance because they lacked a suitable
structure to embed Te Ao Māori, especially Māori
values and concepts of connectedness.
The results of this pilot suggest holism is under-
stood differently in a Te Ao Māori and a science-based
perspective. The LRC, NGS, and TEEB frameworks,
through their inclusion of economic, environmental,
and social dimensions, are considered and described
as holistic from a science perspective. Holism in Te Ao
Māori means including and appropriately codifying
a wide range of knowledge, local aspirations and
values such as kaitiakitanga (guardianship, caretaker
responsibilities and actions) and wairuatanga, which is
central to Māori ways of thinking and knowing about
the world, and ‘an important part of reality which
must be accommodated on a day to day basis’
(Tauranga Moana Iwi Customary Fisheries Trust
2012). Māori values have developed through centuries
based on mātauranga Māori that has been handed
down from generation to generation (Harmsworth,
Awatere, and Pauling 2013a). People are an integral
124 N. HARCOURT ET AL.
part of the environment to the extent that landscapes
are inseparable from tangata (people) formed from
ancestral lineage (whakapapa) derived from tūpuna
(human ancestors) and atua (deities, gods) (Te
Aranga 2008). These interconnected relationships are
explained through whakapapa, which can be thought
of as the ‘practical manifestation of the kinship prin-
ciple’ (Waitangi Tribunal 2011a, 105) and mean that
Māori directly connect the mauri (lifeforce, essence,
vitality) of the whenua with the health of its people.
This deliberate embedding of spirituality, values, and
beliefs in knowledge and protocols about creating
knowledge through mātauranga Māori contrasts
markedly with the science knowledge system and
accepted research processes, which for decades have
endeavoured to separate values and knowledge
(Hikuroa 2017).
Even in decision frameworks that specifically
include a place for cultural values, such as the NGS
and ecosystem services through the inclusion of cul-
tural services (Harmsworth, Awatere, and Pauling),
their insertion and codification remain problematic.
Cultural values can lose their meaning when inserted
into non-indigenous frameworks, and there is
increased potential for misinterpretation, misuse, and
misappropriation when used by non-indigenous
groups. In other words, simply including a place for
indigenous values does not ensure they are appropri-
ately embedded. There can also be conflict in framing.
The TEEB framework, arguably the most holistic of
the science-based frameworks, still provides an
anthropocentric framing of the natural world, where
the environment provides services to humans. It does
not reflect the Te Ao Māori concept of tau utuutu,
giving back what you take. Indeed, many have chal-
lenged the ecosystem services concept from an indi-
genous holistic perspective (Harmsworth, Awatere,
and Pauling ; Walker 2004) because it portrays an
exploitative human-nature relationship (Greenhalgh
and Hart 2015).
Being able to incorporate worldviews is important
in building relevance as they shape what we know,
how we know, how we apply knowledge, and what
we consider important (Timoti et al. 2017), and by
extension, will affect our land use decisions. There are
many very different worldviews and underlying belief
and value systems in A-NZ, with the most contrast
seen between indigenous and non-indigenous knowl-
edge systems, values, and priorities. Of particular rele-
vance for land use decisions is the view of mainstream
thinking in A-NZ of land as a productive resource to
be used, bought, and sold, and representing economic
power (Wynyard 2017). This stems back to 1840, with
the passing of the English Laws Act (NZLII n.d.),
which enforced a Eurocentric economic capitalist
model that individualised land title and property sub-
division based on individual rights. In this economic
framing, productivity and land value have been key
considerations driving land use decisions (Mackay,
Dominati, and Rendel 2015; Mackay and Perkins
2019). This is not to say that stewardship and environ-
mental care have been absent – as they certainly have
not (Norton et al. 2020), and over the last 20 years
there has been a shift towards a broader consideration
of impacts of land use; however, land use decisions still
generally sit within the framing of productivity and
production. For Māori, the move to individualised
land titles was alienating and consideration of impact
goes beyond the well-being of human communities
and broader ecosystems, extending to encapsulate
spiritual and metaphysical elements. The special
bond Māori have with their lands through whakapapa
connections, past, present, and future generations,
means all the dimensions that impact on the environ-
ment are relevant, and are considered over the long
term because a significant proportion of land belong-
ing to Māori will never be sold. Most Māori land in
A-NZ comes under the Te Ture Whenua Act
((Harmsworth, Awatere, and Pauling 2013a), which
ensures ‘Taonga tuku iho’ (passing resources down
to the next generation, inter-generational equity)
where land is retained and controlled by Māori in
good condition.
In addition, connections afforded by whakapapa
oblige Māori to have a duty of care towards taonga
tuku iho (treasures), especially through kaitiakitanga
by kaitiaki (the caretakers, guardians) (Marsden and
Henare 1992; Roberts et al. 1995).This active approach
to caring for the environment is more than merely
resource management. In Te Ao Māori it is grounded
on a strong spiritual base that guides traditions and
behaviour through time, summarised during the
Waitangi Tribunal Case (WAI 262) when kaitiaki-
tanga was described as being ‘a product of whanaun-
gatanga – that is, it is an intergenerational obligation
that arises by virtue of the kin relationship’ (Waitangi
Tribunal 2011b, 105). Kaitiakitanga strives to restore
balance back to a whole system, to maintain or restore
the mauri (lifeforce), and to ensure that this balance is
maintained between people and the natural and spiri-
tual worlds (Harmsworth 2018).
4.3. Legitimacy
The dimensions of legitimacy predominantly apply to
the knowledge creation process: that it is trusted and
fair, that an appropriate partnership approach was
taken, that it recognised the importance of relational-
ity, and where Māori have control of their knowledge
and knowledge processes, and there is benefit to
Māori.
The only framework that was considered as having
legitimacy and likely to produce legitimate informa-
tion for supporting land use decision for Māori was
AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 125
the process-based participatory MLUOA Tool. This
framework used a kaupapa Māori design approach
for framework development and structure, following
locally appropriate tikanga.
A kaupapa Māori approach starts by working with
a Māori user group to define and agree on expected
outcomes, ensuring relevance to the specific commu-
nity and is shaped by the cultural norms of that com-
munity. Data generation relies on collective sharing of
knowledge and perspectives, to generate outputs
enabling it to accommodate knowledge from
both mātauranga Māori and science (Awatere and
Harcourt 2020). The framework itself is co-
developed, as are the results of the framework. So
central to building legitimacy for Māori is co-
creation, in part to ensure that there is trust in the
process, that worldviews, values and cultural norms
are respected, and also to ensure that appropriation of
knowledge or cultural misrepresentation does not
occur (Kitson et al. 2018). It is also critical to ensure
knowledge sovereignty and the absolute right to assert
tino rangatiratanga (as outlined in Article 2 of Te Tiriti
o Waitangi) over this knowledge, so Māori have con-
trol over the knowledge and research contained within
the framework. The use of a kaupapa Māori approach
also allowed the concept of fairness to be included in
the framework and to ensure that the framework and
subsequent decisions did not serve to perpetuate or
compound inequalities (Cash and Belloy 2020).
4.4. Building greater credibility, relevance and
legitimacy
Frameworks which produce relevant and credible and
legitimate information for Māori land stewards are
needed, yet our preliminary research suggests many
of the current options fall short. We highlight the need
for new consideration of what is required for develop-
ing frameworks which are useful across cultures, value
sets, and worldviews. Frameworks need to be devel-
oped specifically with the end-users in mind, so Te Ao
Māori knowledge, perspectives, and values must be
included to make them useful to Māori. Several les-
sons are given from this pilot study for non-
indigenous groups, researchers, and scientists wanting
to develop credible, relevant, and legitimate land use
decision-making frameworks for Māori.
●Take a co-development approach. Co-
development is a joint endeavour where the
work is jointly aspired to, is co-designed and
collectively developed, and is critical to building
legitimacy for Māori. Co-development starts at
the very beginning of an endeavour and would
examine what is needed to inform land use deci-
sion-making, drawing from both scientific
and mātauranga Māori systems of knowledge.
The process of co-development will involve shar-
ing of knowledge and perspectives throughout,
between Māori and non-Māori researchers.
●Build collective partnerships. There are multiple
models of how science and mātauranga Māori can
be brought together; however, of particular value
for developing and using land use decision-
making frameworks is taking a parallel work-
streams approach (e.g. Sea Change 2017; WRA,
undated) that simultaneously upholds
both mātauranga Māori and science knowledge
systems. A powerful metaphor for collaborative
partnership based on the parallel workstreams
approach is the Waka-Taurua framework
(Maxwell et al. 2020). The metaphor is of two
waka (canoes) lashed together on either side of
a deck, with each waka representing the worldview
and values of the people who are coming together
to achieve a common purpose, in this case
a science-based approach alongside a mātauranga
Māori-based approach. The metaphor acknowl-
edges that each group is or may be inherently
different, and the knowledge, values, and actions
of each are not made to fit into the other group.
Each waka provides a safe space to know and be in
its own way, and this reflects the right of tino
rangatiratanga. The deck represents a shared
engagement space. This space can be likened to
the ‘negotiated space model’ (Hudson et al. 2010)
which is a contextual intercultural space for con-
sented, purposeful engagement of distinctive
worldviews and knowledge systems.
●Embed mātauranga Māori. A framework that can
accommodate knowledge from both mātauranga
Māori and science (Awatere and Harcourt 2020)
and where data generation relies on collective
sharing of knowledge and perspectives will
increase credibility and legitimacy for Māori land
use decision-makers. Mātauranga Māori is inher-
ently place-based, and decision frameworks should
always utilise protocols for using this knowledge.
●Recognise and support expertise. What constitutes
expertise for Māori can be different to the scientific
paradigm. For Māori, credibility is built by having
appropriate cultural know-how, appropriate rela-
tionships (Kerr 2012), sufficient mana and respect,
as well as appropriate research knowledge and
experience. Furthermore, mātauranga Māori is by
definition developed by Māori for Māori. It is
therefore important that credible Māori partners
are equably resourced through the co-
development process.
●Embrace Te Ao Māori. The Te Ao Māori world-
view and concepts can enrich land use decision-
making frameworks and increase their usefulness
as well as highlight issues of fairness and equity.
Understanding Māori concepts and values like
126 N. HARCOURT ET AL.
kaitaikitanga, tau utuutu, interconnectedness,
and links between the environment and human
health and well-being, are fundamentally impor-
tant in all areas of resource management, espe-
cially water management, and can support
making better land use decisions.
5. Conclusion
The development of decision-making frameworks to
help users compare the relative merits of undertaking
alternative activities on sustainability and well-being is
common to scientific and policy circles across the globe.
In the main, these frameworks have been developed by
non-indigenous researchers, generally based on
science-based ways of knowing and organising infor-
mation that are largely underpinned by non-indigenous
assumptions, motivations, and values. Where the deci-
sion-making frameworks have been intended for
a general audience, comprising both indigenous and
non-indigenous users, the usefulness and relevance of
these to indigenous users may be inherently limited,
given they are constructed according to the non-
indigenous worldview. Constructing decision-making
frameworks that have true utility for both Māori and
non-Māori land stewards is challenging, because they
have fundamentally different relationships with the
environment (te taiao), the land (whenua), and its
resources (taonga tuku iho). Many values are universal
in Māori culture and influence obligations, responsibil-
ities, and behaviour; however, values are interpreted
and understood locally. It is critically important that
any decision support tools are designed to embrace
Māori values if they are to be truly useful to Māori
and elicit the information required to achieve their
aspirations for managing their whenua.
We conclude that it is essential to co-develop fra-
meworks in genuine partnership with Māori if they are
to be of any use for them. Taking a true co-
development approach and operating at the research
interface where indigenous and non-indigenous
research partners share knowledge and perspectives
will produce more relevant and useful outputs that
are transformational for land use decisions.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the New Zealand Ministry for
Business, Innovation and Employment’s Our Land and
Water National Science Challenge (Toitū te Whenua,
Toiora te Wai), contract C10X1901, as part of the
‘Whitiwhiti Ora’ programme.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment [C10X1901].
Notes on contributors
Dr Nichola Harcourt is a senior Māori Research advisor/
Kaihautū Whenua at Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research.
A descendant of Waikato-Tainui, Nichola works at the
interface of matauranga Māori and Western Science.
Nichola is acknowledged to be a leading authority on eco-
nomic opportunities from indigenous plants, and specialises
in working with Māori landowners to support their deci-
sion-making about alternative land use opportunities.
Dr Melissa Robson-Williams works at Manaaki Whenua
Landcare Research as a senior researcher in environmental
science and transdisciplinary research and manages the
Integrated Land and Water Management research area.
She specialises in managing the impacts of land use on
water, science and policy interactions and the practice of
integrative and transdisciplinary research.
Reina Tamepo is a Sustainable Value Chains System
Researcher in the Te Ao Maori Research Group at Scion
Research. Research capabilty includes value chain model-
ling, spatial modelling, nutrient modelling and farm sys-
tems. Ko Te Whānau ā Apanui, Ngāti Porou, Ngati Awa
nga iwi.
ORCID
Melissa Robson-Williams http://orcid.org/0000-0003-
0318-3933
References
Alrøe, H. F., H. Moller, J. Læssøe, and E NOE. 2016.
“Opportunities and Challenges for Multicriteria
Assessment of Food System Sustainability.” Ecology
and Society 21 (1). doi:10.5751/ES-08394-210138.
Aranga, T. 2008. Te Aranga: Māori Cultural Landscape
Strategy. Second Edition. Auckland: Auckland Design
Manual.
Awatere, S., and N. Harcourt. 2020. “Whakarite Whakaaro,
Whanake Whenua: Kaupapa Māori Decision-making
Frameworks for Alternative Land Use Assessments.” In
Kia Whakanuia Te Whenua, edited by C Hill. Auckland:
Landscape Foundation. 127–136.
Awatere, S., and G. Harmsworth. 2014. Nga Aroturukitanga
Tika Mo Nga Kaitiaki: Summary Review of Mātauranga
Māori Frameworks, Approaches, and Culturally
Appropriate Monitoring Tools for Management of
Mahinga Kai. Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research.
Barnes, H. M. 2009. The Evaluation Hikoi: A Maori
Overview of Programme Evaluation. Te Ropu Whariki.
Bausch, J. C., L. Bojórquez-Tapia, and H. Eakin. 2014.
“Agro-Environmental Sustainability Assessment Using
Multicriteria Decision Analysis and System Analysis.”
Sustainability Science 9 (3): 303–319. doi:10.1007/
s11625-014-0243-y.
Berl 2021. Te Ōhanga Māori 2018. Te Ōhanga Māori 2018.
Report prodcued by BERL.
AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 127
Broughton, D., T. Te Aitanga-a-hauiti, N. Porou,
K. McBreen, K.M. Waitaha, and N. Tahu. 2015.
“Mātauranga Māori, Tino Rangatiratanga and the
Future of New Zealand Science.” Journal of the Royal
Society of New Zealand 45 (2): 83–88. doi:10.1080/
03036758.2015.1011171.
Cash, D. W. 2003. “Innovative Natural Resource
Management: Nebraska’s Model for Linking Science and
Decisionmaking.” Environment 45: 8–20.
Cash, D. W., and P. G. Belloy. 2020. “Salience, Credibility
and Legitimacy in a Rapidly Shifting World of Knowledge
and Action.” Sustainability 12 (18): 7376. doi:10.3390/
su12187376.
Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson,
N. Eckley, D. H. Guston, J. Jäger, and R. B. Mitchell
2003. Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 100, 8086–8091.
Change, S. 2017. “Sea Change - Tau Timu Tai Pari. Hauraki
Gulf Marine Spatial Plan. An Introduction and
Overview.” https://www.seachange.org.nz/assets/Sea-
Change/5584-MSP-summary-WR.pdf . Accessed on 15
August 2021.
Cottrell, R. 2016. “The Opportunities and Challenges of
Maori Agribusiness in Hill Farming.” NZGA: Research
and Practice Series 16: 21–24.
Cram, F., M. Henare, T. Hunt, J. Mauger, D. Pahiri,
S. Pitama, and C. Tuuta. 2002. Maori and Science: Three
Case Studies. Report prepared for the Royal Society of
New Zealand Ref: 9542.00.
Dunn, G., and M. Laing. 2017. “Policy-makers Perspectives
on Credibility, Relevance and Legitimacy (CRELE).”
Environmental Science & Policy 76: 146–152.
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.005.
Durie, M. 2004. “Understanding Health and Illness:
Research at the Interface between Science and
Indigenous Knowledge.” International Journal of
Epidemiology 33 (5): 1138–1143. doi:10.1093/ije/dyh250.
Durie, E. 2012. “Ancestral Laws of Māori: Continuities of
Land, People and History.” In Huia Histories of Māori:
Ngā Tāhuhu Kōrero. Wellington, New Zealand: Huia
Publishers. 1–11.
Eigenraam, M., R. Mcloed, K. Sharma, K. Obst, and
A. Jekums. 2020. “APPLYING THE TEEBAGRIFOOD
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK: Overarching
Implementation Guidance.” Global Alliance for the
Future of Food.
Greenhalgh, S., and G. Hart. 2015. “Mainstreaming
Ecosystem Services into Policy and Decision-making:
Lessons from New Zealand’s Journey.” International
Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services &
Management 11 (3): 205–215. doi:10.1080/
21513732.2015.1042523.
Hainsworth, S., D. S. Fraser, A. Eger, and D. J. Palmer 2016.
Digital Soil Mapping in the NZ Context: Hawke’s Bay,
North Island, New Zealand. Proceedings: Joint
Conference of the New Zealand Society of Soil Science
and Soil Science Australia: Soil, a Balancing Act
Downunder, Queenstown, New Zealand, 12-
16December 2016. http://www.nzsssconference.co.nz/
images/Sharn_Hainsworth.pdf .
Harcourt, N., and S. Awatere. 2021. “Rapuhia Ngā Tohu
(Seeking the signs-Indigenous Knowledge-informed
Climate Adaptation.” In Indigenous Water and Drought
Management in a Changing World, edited by M Sioui.
Elsevier. Chapter 14.
Hargreaves, R. 1959. “The Maori Agriculture of the
Auckland Province in the Mid-nineteenth Century.”
The Journal of the Polynesian Society 68: 61–79.
Harmsworth, G. 2018. Mātauranga Māori and Science:
Opportunities for Research, Planning and Practice. Lincoln,
New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research.
Harmsworth, G. R., and S. Awatere. 2013. Indigenous Māori
Knowledge and Perspectives of Ecosystems. Ecosystem
Services in New Zealand—conditions and Trends,
274–286. Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press.
Harmsworth, G., S. Awatere, and C. Pauling. 2013a. “Using
Matuaranga Maori to Inform Freshwater Management.”
Landcare Research Policy Brief, no. 7. Research, Editor.
2013, Landcare Research: Auckland, New Zealand.
Harmsworth, G., S. Awatere, and C. Pauling. 2013b. “Using
Matuaranga Maori to Inform Freshwater Management.”
Landcare Research Policy Brief, no. 7, 1–5.
Harmsworth, G., and G. Tipa 2009. Māori Environmental
Monitoring in New Zealand: Progress, Concepts, and
Future Direction. Report for the ICM website.
Heink, U., E. Marquard, K. Heubach, K. Jax, C. Kugel,
C. Neßhöver, R. K. Neumann, A. Paulsch, S. Tilch, and
J. Timaeus. 2015. “Conceptualizing Credibility, Relevance
and Legitimacy for Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Science–policy Interfaces: Challenges and
Opportunities.” Science & Public Policy 42 (5): 676–689.
doi:10.1093/scipol/scu082.
Hikuroa, D. 2017. “Matauranga Maori-the Ukaipo of
Knowledge in New Zealand.” Journal of the Royal
Society of New Zealand 47 (1): 5–10. doi:10.1080/
03036758.2016.1252407.
Hudson, M., M. Roberts, L. Smith, M. Hemi, and S.-J. Tiakiwai.
2010. “Perspectives on the Use of Embryos in Research.”
AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples
6: 54–65. doi:10.1177/117718011000600105.
Hudson, M. L., and K. Russell. 2009. “The Treaty of Waitangi
and Research Ethics in Aotearoa.” Journal of Bioethical
Inquiry 6 (1): 61–68. doi:10.1007/s11673-008-9127-0.
Irwin, K. 1994. “Maori Research Methods and Practices.”
Sites 28: 25–43.
Kerr, S. 2012. “Kaupapa Māori Theory-based Evaluation.”
Evaluation Journal of Australasia 12 (1): 6–18.
doi:10.1177/1035719X1201200102.
Kitson, J. C., A. M. Cain, M. N. T. H. Johnstone, R. Anglem,
J. Davis, M. Grey, A. Kaio, S.-R. Blair, and D. Whaanga.
2018. “Murihiku Cultural Water Classification System:
Enduring Partnerships between People, Disciplines and
Knowledge Systems.” New Zealand Journal of Marine and
Freshwater Research 52 (4): 511–525. doi:10.1080/
00288330.2018.1506485.
Lambert, L. 2014. Research for Indigenous Survival:
Indigenous Research Methodologies in the Behavioral
Sciences. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Larned, S., T Snelder, M. Schallenberg, R. Mcdowell, S. Harris,
C. Rissmann, M. Beare, G. Tipa, S. Crow, and C. Daughney
2017. Shifting from Land-use Capability to Land-use
Suitability in the Our Land & Water National Science
Challenge. Science and Policy: Nutrient Management
Challenges for the Next Generation.(Eds LD Currie and MJ
Hedley) http://flrc.massey.acnz/publications.html.
OccasionalReport. Accessed on 15 August 2021. http://rc.
massey.acnz/publications.html.OccasionalReport .
Larned, S., T. Snelder, M. Unwin, and G. Mcbride. 2016.
“Water Quality in New Zealand Rivers: Current State and
Trends.” New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research 50 (3): 389–417. doi:10.1080/
00288330.2016.1150309.
128 N. HARCOURT ET AL.
Lilburne, L., A. Eger, P. Mudge, A.-G. Ausseil, B. Stevenson,
A. Herzig, and M. Beare. 2020. “The Land Resource Circle:
Supporting Land-use Decision Making with an
Ecosystem-service-based Framework of Soil Functions.”
Geoderma 363: 114134. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114134.
Lynn, I., A. Manderson, M. Page, G. Harmsworth, G. Eyles,
G. Douglas, A. Mackay, and P. Newsome. 2009. Land Use
Capability Survey Handbook - a New Zealand Handbook
for the Classification of Land. 3rd ed. Lower Hutt:
AgResearch, Hamilton, Landcare Research, Lincoln and
Institute of Geological and Nuclear Science .
Lyver, P. O. B., P. Timoti, A. M. Gormley, C. J. Jones,
S. J. Richardson, B. L. Tahi, and S. Greenhalgh. 2017.
“Key Māori Values Strengthen the Mapping of Forest
Ecosystem Services.” Ecosystem Services 27: 92–102.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.009.
Mackay, A., E. Dominati, and J. Rendel. 2015. “Looking to
the Future of Land Evaluation and Farm Systems
Analysis.” In New Zealand Institute of Primary Industry
Management, 28–31. Wellington, New Zealand: NZIPIM.
Mackay, M., and H. C. Perkins. 2019. “Making Space for
Community in Super-productivist Rural Settings.”
Journal of Rural Studies 68: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2019.03.012.
Marsden, M., and T. A. Henare. 1992. Kaitiakitanga:
A Definitive Introduction to the Holistic World View of
the Māori. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the
Environment.
Matson, P., W. C. Clark, and K. Andersson. 2016. Pursuing
Sustainability: A Guide to the Science and Practice.
Princeton, NJ, USA: PrincetonUniversity Press.
Maxwell, K., S. Awatere, K. Ratana, K. Davies, and
C. Taiapa. 2020. “He Waka Eke Noa/we are All in the
Same Boat: A Framework for Co-governance from
Aotearoa New Zealand.” Marine Policy 121: 104213.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104213.
May, P., G. Platais, M. Di Gregorio, J. Gowdy, L. Pinto,
Y. Laurans, C. Cervone, A. Rankovic, and
M. Santamaria. 2018. “The TEEB AgriFood Theory of
Change: From Information to Action.“ In TEEB for
Agriculture &Food: Scientific and Economic Foundations.
Geneva: UN Environment.
Mcdowell, R., T. Snelder, S. Harris, L. Lilburne, S. Larned,
M. Scarsbrook, A. Curtis, B. Holgate, J. Phillips, and
K. Taylor. 2018. “The Land Use Suitability Concept:
Introduction and an Application of the Concept to
Inform Sustainable Productivity within Environmental
Constraints.” Ecological Indicators 91: 212–219.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.03.067.
Mea. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems
and Human Well-being. Washington DC: Island press
United States of America.
Mfe/Statsnz 2018. New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting
Series: Our Land 2018. New Zealand’s Environmental
Reporting Series:. Wellington: Ministry for the
Environment and Stats NZ.
Mfe/Statsnz 2019. New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting
Series: Environment Aotearoa 2019. Wellington, New
ZealandMinistry for the Environment & Stats NZ.
Mfe/Statsnz 2020. Our Freshwater 2020. New Zealand’s
Environmental Reporting Series. https://environment.
govt.nz/assets/Publications/Files/our-freshwater-2020.
pdf: Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ.
Accessed on 15 August 2021.
Moewaka Barnes, H. 2009. The Evaluation Hikoi: A Maori
Overview of Programme Evaluation. Massey University:
Te Ropu Whariki.
Moewaka Barnes, H., and T. Mccreanor. 2019.
“Colonisation, Hauora and Whenua in Aotearoa.”
Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 49 (sup1):
19–33. doi:10.1080/03036758.2019.1668439.
Morgan, K. 2007. “Waiora and Cultural Identity: Water
Quality Assessment Using the Mauri Model.” Alternative:
An International Journal of Indigenous Scholarship 3 (1):
42–67. doi:10.1177/117718010600300103.
Morgan, T. K. K. B., J. Reid, O. W. T. Mcmillan, T. Kingi,
T. T. White, B. Young, V. Snow, and S. Laurenson. 2021.
“Towards Best-Practice Inclusion of Cultural Indicators in
Decision Making by Indigenous Peoples.” AlterNative: An
International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 17 (2): 202–224.
Norton, N., and M. Robson 2015. South Canterbury Coastal
Streams (SCCS) Limit Setting Process Predicting
Consequences of Future Scenarios: Overview Report.
Report no. R15/29. https://www.ecan.govt.nz/document/
download?uri=2253691. Environment Canterbury.
Accessed on 15 August 2021.
Norton, D. A., F. Suryaningrum, H. L. Buckley, B. S. Case,
C. H. Cochrane, A. S. Forbes, and M. Harcombe. 2020.
“Achieving Win-win Outcomes for Pastoral Farming and
Biodiversity Conservation in New Zealand.” New Zealand
Journal of Ecology 44 (2): 1–9. doi:10.20417/nzjecol.44.15.
Oecd. 2019. Well-being: Performance, Measurement and Policy
Innovations. OECD Economic Surveys: New Zealand 2019.
Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development OECD Economic Surveys https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/sites/ce83f914-en/index.html?itemId=/content/
component/ce83f914-en Accessed on 20 August 2021.
Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, S. Díaz, G. Pataki, E. Roth,
M. Stenseke, R. T. Watson, E. B. Dessane, M. Islar, and
E. Kelemen. 2017. “Valuing Nature’s Contributions to
People: The IPBES Approach.” Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 26-27: 7–16. doi:10.1016/j.
cosust.2016.12.006.
Pce 2013. Water Quality in New Zealand: Land Use and
Nutrient Pollution. Report by the Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment. Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment Te Kaitiaki Taiao
a Te Whare Paremata.
Pce 2015. Update Report Water Quality in New Zeland:
Land Use and Nutrient Pollution. Report by the
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Te
Kaitiaki Taiao a Te Whare Paremata.
Petrie, Hazel. 2002. ”Colonisation and the Involution of the
Maori Economy.” XIII World Congress of Economic
History, Buenos Aires
Rautaki. undated. Rangahau. Accessed 1 October 2021.
http://www.rangahau.co.nz/rangahau/
Renting, H., W. Rossing, J. Groot, J. Van der Ploeg,
C. Laurent, D. Perraud, D. J. Stobbelaar, and M. Van
Ittersum. 2009. “Exploring Multifunctional Agriculture.
A Review of Conceptual Approaches and Prospects for an
Integrative Transitional Framework.” Journal of
Environmental Management 90: S112–S123.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.014.
Renwick, A., A. Wreford, R. Dynes, P. Johnstone,
G. Edwards, C. Hedley, W. King, and P. Clinton. 2017.
Next Generation Systems: A Framework for Prioritising
Innovation. In Science and Policy: Nutrient Management
Challenges for the Next Generation, edited by L.D. Currie,
and M. J. Hedley, 9. Palmerston North, New Zealand:
Fertilizer and Lime Research Centre, Massey University.
Occasional Report No. 30 http://flrc.massey.ac.nz/publica
tions.html Accessed on 20 August 2021.
AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 129
Roberts, M., W. Norman, N. Minhinnick, D. Wihongi, and
C. Kirkwood. 1995. “Kaitiakitanga: Maori Perspectives on
Conservation.” Pacific Conservation Biology 2 (1): 7–20.
doi:10.1071/PC950007.
Robson, M. C. 2014. Technical Report to Support Water
Quality and Water Quantity Limit Setting Process in
Selwyn Waihora Catchment. Predicting Consequences
of Future Scenarios: Overview Report. Environment
Canterbury Technical Report No. R14/15. Environment
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Saunders, F. P. 2016. “Complex Shades of Green: Gradually
Changing Notions of the ‘Good Farmer’in a S Wedish
Context.” Sociologia Ruralis 56 (3): 391–407. doi:10.1111/
soru.12115.
Sbn. 2019. Sustainable Business Network. Lessons to Be
Learnt from Māori Business Values [Online]. Sustainable
Business Network. Accessed 3 September 2021. https://
sustainable.org.nz/sustainable-business-news/lessons-to-
be-learnt-from-maori-business-values/
Sbn/Mfe 2003. Sustainable Business Council and
Ministry for the Environment. Enterprise3 Your
Business and the Triple Bottom Line. Economic,
Environmental, Social Performance. Wellington.
https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Files/
enterprise3-triple-bottom-line-guide-jun03.pdf:
Ministry for the Environment.
Schuttenberg, H. Z., and H. K. Guth. 2015. “Seeking Our
Shared Wisdom: A Framework for Understanding
Knowledge Coproduction and Coproductive
Capacities.” Ecology and Society 20 (1). doi:10.5751/ES-
07038-200115.
Seawright, J., and J. Gerring. 2008. “Case Study Selection
Techniques in case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative
and Quantitative Options.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2):
294–308. doi:10.1177/1065912907313077.
Shareia, B. 2016. “Qualitative and Quantitative Case Study
Research Method on Social Science: Accounting
Perspective.” International Journal of Economics and
Management Engineering 10 (12): 3849–3854.
Shove, E. 2010. “Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy
and Theories of Social Change.” Environment & Planning
A 42 (6): 1273–1285. doi:10.1068/a42282.
Small, B., M. Robson-Williams, P. Payne, J. A. Turner,
R. Robson-Williams, and A. Horita. 2021. “Co-
Innovation and Integration and Implementation Sciences:
Measuring Their Research Impact - Examination of Five
New Zealand Primary Sector Case Studies.” NJAS: Impact
in Agricultural and Life Sciences 93: 5–47.
Smith, L. T. 2015. “Kaupapa Māori Research-some Kaupapa
Māori Principles.“ In Kaupapa Rangahau A Reader: A
Collection of Readings from the Kaupapa Maori Research
Workshop Series, edited by L. Pihama and K. South, 46–52.
Smith, G. 2017. “Kaupapa Māori Theory: Indigenous
Transforming of Education.” Critical Conversations in
Kaupapa Maori, edited by T. Hoskins and A. Jones,
70–81.
Smith, L. T. 2021. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and
Indigenous Peoples. London: Bloomsbury Publishing
PLC.
Spurling, N. J., A. Mcmeekin, D. Southerton, E. A. Shove,
and D. Welch 2013. Interventions in Practice: Reframing
Policy Approaches to Consumer Behaviour. Sustainable
Practices Research Group Report. http://www.sprg.ac.uk/
uploads/sprg-report-sept-2013.pdf Accessed on 20
September 2021.
Statsnz. 2021. Agricultural Production Census. Wellington:
Statistics New Zealand [Online]. [Accessed].
Teeb. 2018. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(TEEB) for Agriculture & Food: Scientific and Economic
Foundations. Geneva: UN Environment.
Timoti, P., P. O. B. Lyver, R. Matamua, C. J. Jones, and
B. L. Tahi. 2017. “A Representation of A Tuawhenua
Worldview Guides Environmental Conservation.”
Ecology and Society 22 (4). doi:10.5751/ES-09768-
220420.
Tipa, G., and L. D. Teirney. 2006. A Cultural Health Index
for Streams and Waterways: A Tool for Nationwide Use.
Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment
Wellington.
Treasury. 2019. Our Living Standards Framework [Online].
Wellington: Te Tai Ōhanga, The Treasury. [Accessed 3
September 2021].
Tribunal, N. Z. W. 2011a. “Ko Aotearoa Tēnei [Electronic
Resource]: A Report into Claims Concerning New
Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and
Identity.” New Zealand. Waitangi Tribunal. Waitangi
Tribunal Reports.
Tribunal, W. 2011b. Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: A Report into
Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy
Affecting Māori Culture and Identity (Wai 262).
Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Flawed.
Trust, T. M. I. C. F. 2012. Rohe Moana Management Plan:
Tangata Kaitiaki Resource. Unpublished document
Walker, R. 2004. Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle
Without End, 1990. Auckland: Penguin, herziene uitgave.
Wheeler, H. C., and M. Root-Bernstein. 2020. “Informing
Decision-making with Indigenous and Local Knowledge
and Science.” Journal of Applied Ecology 57 (9): 1634–
1643. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13734.
Wilson, D., A. Mikahere-Hall, and J. Sherwood. 2021.
“Using Indigenous Kaupapa Māori Research
Methodology with Constructivist Grounded Theory:
Generating a Theoretical Explanation of Indigenous
Womens Realities.” International Journal of Social
Research Methodology 1–16. doi:10.1080/
13645579.2021.1897756.
WRA Undated. Restoring and Protecting the Health and
Wellbeing of the Waikato River. https://waikatoriver.org.
nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Vision-and-Strategy-
Reprint-2019web.pdf. Hamilton: Waikato River Authority.
Wynyard, M. 2017. “Plunder in the Promised Land: Maori
Land Alienation and the Genesis of Capitalism in Aotearoa
New Zealand.” A Land of Milk and Honey, edited by B.
Avril, E. Vivienne, T. McIntosh and M. Wynyard. 13–25.
Wynyard, M. 2019. “‘Not One More Bloody Acre’: Land
Restitution and the Treaty of Waitangi Settlement
Process in Aotearoa New Zealand.” Land 8 (11): 162.
doi:10.3390/land8110162.
130 N. HARCOURT ET AL.
