Supporting the design of useful and relevant holistic frameworks for land use opportunity assessment for indigenous people

Figures & data

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

Figure 1. Land use capability classification (Lynn et al. 2009).

Figure 2. Land resource circle (Lilburne et al. 2020).

Figure 3. Domains and examples of sub-criteria of the next generations solutions assessment framework (Renwick et al. 2017).

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

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

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:https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07038-200115.

 Google Scholar

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:https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13734.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dunn, G., and M. Laing. 2017. “Policy-makers Perspectives on Credibility, Relevance and Legitimacy (CRELE).” Environmental Science & Policy 76: 146–152. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

Barnes, H. M. 2009. The Evaluation Hikoi: A Maori Overview of Programme Evaluation. Te Ropu Whariki.

 Google Scholar

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:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-008-9127-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kerr, S. 2012. “Kaupapa Māori Theory-based Evaluation.” Evaluation Journal of Australasia 12 (1): 6–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X1201200102.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

Harmsworth, G., S. Awatere, and C. Pauling. 2013b. “Using Matuaranga Maori to Inform Freshwater Management.” Landcare Research Policy Brief, no. 7, 1–5.

 Google Scholar

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:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

Irwin, K. 1994. “Maori Research Methods and Practices.” Sites 28: 25–43.

 Google Scholar

Smith, L. T. 2021. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.

 Google Scholar

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:https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187376.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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 .

 Google Scholar

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:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114134.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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/publications.html Accessed on 20 August 2021.

 Google Scholar

Teeb. 2018. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for Agriculture & Food: Scientific and Economic Foundations. Geneva: UN Environment.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar