Māori experiences of social housing in Ōtautahi Christchurch

ABSTRACT

This article presents selected findings of a twelve-month-long research project exploring the lived experiences of Māori social housing tenants residing in Ōtautahi Christchurch. Over the last five years, Aotearoa New Zealand has seen unprecedented social housing demand. There is currently an overrepresentation of Māori experiencing housing need and awaiting placement into social housing, yet studies on this topic are limited. This research narrates the lived experience of Māori social housing tenants. It recounts experiences of social housing placement and explores the interactions tenants have with each other and their surrounding environment to create and maintain a sense of community within their housing placements. This article presents a complex understanding of Māori tenant experience centred on people finding a place to belong. Through utilising a Kaupapa Māori research framework and using semi-structured interviews, this qualitative research describes the process of creating a home as moving beyond the individual house. It highlights how the experience of ‘home’ for Māori tenants is governed by where you live and with whom you live with. Ultimately, the results presented emphasise the relevance of incorporating a Māori worldview into social housing provision to create environments that support Māori wellbeing.

KEYWORDS:

• Māori
• social housing
• New Zealand housing policy
• Māori housing
• Kaupapa Māori

Background

A person’s health is shaped by an interplay of key social determinants, one of which is access to appropriate housing (Baum 2016). Appropriate housing is accommodation that meets a person’s health and wellbeing needs, often classified as housing that is warm, dry, safe, affordable and accessible (Krieger and Higgins 2002; Ade and Rehm 2020). Appropriate housing must also recognise the cultural dimensions of health. That is, housing should reflect the cultural needs of the population in its form and function. Mansour et al. (2022, p. 3) note that ‘culturally appropriate housing promotes the wellbeing of its occupants by supporting the realisation of their beliefs, practices and ways of living’. The ability to access housing that supports both the tangible and intangible elements of health including those culturally specific to a person is a human right (United Nations General Assembly 1948; Bengtsson 2001). The World Health Organisation also identifies this right as laid out in their housing and health guidelines which confirm the essential role housing has in ensuring good health (World Health Organization 2018).

In New Zealand, housing in its many forms has long been a central focus of government debate, no more so than the provision of affordable housing (Waldegrave et al. 2004; Grimes 2017). Over the years, policy targeting the supply of affordable housing has ebbed and flowed in focus and form reflecting changes in governing ideologies and economic restructuring (Murphy 2004). Today, a rising cost of living and the pressures of the past three years of the COVID-19 global pandemic have exacerbated the current undersupply of affordable housing (Ministry of Social Development 2022). While this undersupply is present across the entire housing market, it is especially apparent in the supply of social housing (Howden-Chapman 2015).

Social housing is defined by Howden-Chapman as: ‘Subsidised public sector housing that is provided to tenants by local, state, or national governments or not-for-profit trusts. Housing is usually allocated according to a social allocation formula that takes account of the prospective tenants’ health and social circumstances’ (Howden-Chapman 2004, p. 164). As this definition suggests, social housing is an umbrella term that in New Zealand encompasses public and council housing (Johnson et al. 2018). The term public housing has also now predominantly replaced the use of social housing in government policy (Ministry of Housing and Urban Development 2021). This change in terminology recognises the recent inclusion of community housing in the eligibility criteria for direct government subsidies. These subsidies include income-related rents whereby tenants pay a set portion of their income to rent and the government pays providers the difference between this and the market rate for the property (Dykes 2016). Today, Māori are overrepresented among those seeking and tenanting social housing properties and those currently homeless (Statistics New Zealand 2020). Overrepresentation of Māori in housing need is a result of decades of colonial policy and practice which have disadvantaged Māori in many areas (Groot and Mace 2016).

The disenfranchisement of Māori through social welfare policy, particularly housing welfare policy has consistently been a feature in New Zealand and dates back to the early stages of colonisation and the impact this had on traditional housing practices (Poata-Smith 2013). Māori housing practices were, and still are, contextualised through cultural concepts surrounding whānau (family), relationships and the environment (Awatere et al. 2008; Boulton et al. 2022). Traditional kāinga (villages) were tied to the environment through whakapapa (genealogy) and characterised by the familial links between iwi (tribe), hapū (sub-tribe) and whānau (family) (Lange 1999). Traditional patterns of Māori settlement were first challenged by the arrival of Europeans to New Zealand and the subsequent transfer of land away from iwi and hapū (Anaru 2011). Early stages of colonisation saw a vast amount of Māori land taken and kāinga move to areas often considered less valuable to incoming British farmers (Lange 1999). Land loss was accelerated following the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi - the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 by Māori and the British Crown. The Crown interpreted this signing as formalising British sovereignty over New Zealand (Orange 2021).

Colonisation and subsequent land loss moved many Māori away from their ancestral whenua and influenced both settlement patterns and housing practices (Boulton et al. 2022). Land loss created economic disparity which saw many Māori move to urban centres to fill labour shortages and other work opportunities (Hill 2010). These labouring roles were some of the only options for young Māori escaping impoverished living situations (Walker 1990). Urbanisation occurred across Aotearoa with the 1960s characterised as the most intensive period of Māori urbanisation (Anderson et al. 2014). Before this urban migration, approximately 90% of Māori lived in rural areas (Walker 1990). The government of the time recognised this movement and began to implement migration-assisting policies such as state housing provision through the Māori Affairs Housing Programme (Carroll et al. 2019). These initiatives were accompanied by deliberate policies in the 1960s and 1970s that led to increased land alienation and further facilitated urbanisation. Policies such as the 1967 Māori Affairs Amendment Act and the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 reduced the number of Māori able to live on their kāinga and continued forced movement to urban areas (Bennion 1997; Dalziel et al. 2006; Anderson et al. 2014).

State-provided social housing was located to avoid segregation between Pākehā and Māori families and promote the cultural assimilation of Māori into Western cultural constructs (Harris 2007). This assimilation was facilitated through both the location and design of state housing. The government adopted what was known as the ‘pepper potting’ policy, which saw Māori dispersed amongst Pākehā neighbourhoods to assimilate into the community. This policy disregarded the importance of living with whānau and its connection to Māori wellbeing (Walker 1990). Social housing design also developed through dominant Western cultural understandings and Eurocentric concepts that often failed to represent Māori cultural needs (Rankine 2005). Westernised housing practices are designed to suit more nuclear families, whereas, for Māori, whānau (family) is intergenerational and reflective of a larger family unit with the requirement of housing that accommodates this (Rankine 2005).

The effects of colonisation and the implementation of Westernised housing practices have resulted in intergenerational housing disenfranchisement for Māori (Bingham et al. 2019; Lawson-Te Aho et al. 2019). Land loss and the resulting economic disparity have impacted Māori home ownership rates which today sit below 50% compared to ownership rates of approximately 70% for the New Zealand European population (Statistics New Zealand 2020). Housing disenfranchisement is also reflected in an overrepresentation of Māori in the homeless population and those currently waiting for placement into social housing (Ministry of Social Development 2022).

Despite the legacy of colonialism in housing and the influence it has had on Māori housing practices, there has been little research focused on housing and the lived experiences of Māori tenants. Existing research has also predominantly focused on housing in one overarching form paying little attention to the role and structure of social housing. Within this literature, some research has explored how Māori tenants experience housing and how this is influenced by traditional concepts surrounding connection with people and place (Jahnke 2002; Groot et al. 2015). Boulton et al. (2022), for example, have unpacked how Māori conceptualise the idea of ‘home’ and how these ideas can positively influence future housing policy directives. Concerning social housing, international research focused on housing developments has provided valuable context for this research (Zhu 2015). This existing work highlights how a tenant’s lived experience of housing is also influenced by the design and form of their house and, in the context of social housing, the wider built environment (Sani et al. 2011; Fang et al. 2016).

To summarise, there has been limited research that focuses on understanding Māori lived experiences of social housing and, particularly, social housing complexes. Social housing is governed by its aim to supply housing to those with the greatest need. In some cases, the property a person is offered may not always be a person’s first choice due to aspects associated with location, structure, and proximity to whānau and friends (Carroll et al. 2019). Essentially, as culturally appropriate housing is a right, the government is responsible for ensuring that social housing is suitably designed to meet the needs of Māori tenants (United Nations General Assembly 1948; Rigby 2019). Achieving housing equity for Māori is contingent on the recognition and inclusion of a Te Ao Māori worldview which understands Māori conceptualisations of health move beyond simply being free from illness or injury (Durie 1998; Mark and Lyons 2010). These conceptualisations are represented in Māori health models such as Te Whare Tapa Whā, which presents the four walls that hold up a person’s health as taha tinana (physical health), taha wairua (spiritual health), taha whānau (family health) and taha hinengaro (mental health) (Durie 1998). Housing must address these four spheres of wellbeing for it to be health-enhancing. Understanding how at present social housing is being experienced by Māori tenants is essential if this responsibility is to be met.

This research has been constructed to build on existing knowledge and apply this to the social housing setting. It explores Māori social housing needs and provides insight into how New Zealand can establish housing that is more culturally appropriate and/or aligns with Māori values (Waldegrave et al. 2000; Hoskins et al. 2002; Groot and Mace 2016; Boulton et al. 2022).

The research has been localised to Ōtautahi Christchurch due to its relationship with an ongoing National Science Challenge study based in the Ōtautahi called ACTIVATION (Activating Change Through InterVentions for Active Travel in Our Neighbourhoods). The early stages of ACTIVATION have been conducted within social housing properties run by Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT). Considering the twelve-month time frame, this project was conducted as stand-alone research but leveraged an existing relationship between ACTIVATION and OCHT to locate participants. Data generation was localised to tenants living in social housing complexes across Ōtautahi and was guided by the following primary research question:

• How do Māori experience social housing in Ōtautahi Aotearoa?

Methodology and methods

This Kaupapa Māori research project was designed to build on existing literature and provide another dimension of insight into Māori experiences of housing. It has been conducted through a public health lens and founded on the premise that appropriate housing is a crucial determinant of health. A focus on equity, and addressing culturally dependent understandings, also influenced the choice of research methodology. Using a Kaupapa Māori research framework and qualitative methods, this research presents an in-depth account of social housing from the tenant's perspective.

Kaupapa Māori methodologies challenge the dominance of Western research constructs and the colonial processes that enforce them (Walker et al. 2006). As a research methodology, Smith (2015, p. 48) states, ‘instead of fitting research methods into a Māori framework, Kaupapa Māori assumes the existence and validity of Māori knowledge, language, and culture.’ Born through a struggle for Māori legitimacy, Kaupapa Māori research is transformative (Curtis 2016). It is research undertaken for Māori and conducted by Māori researchers that in practice aims to generate ongoing benefits for Māori communities (Eketone 2008; Smith 2012). The research methodology was also informed by a constructionist epistemology. Constructionism theorises that knowledge and meaning are created and validated through peoples’ experiences and interactions with the world around them (Crotty 1998). This approach infers there are multiple ways of knowing and numerous truths (Payne 1997).

This research utilised face-to-face semi-structured interviews with social housing tenants for data generation. These interviews took place between December 2021 and January 2022. Participants were contacted using information gathered in ACTIVATION’s initial data collection stages. The contact details of 22 people who had opted to be approached for further research opportunities were passed on to me by one of the lead researchers from ACTIVATION. Eight Māori tenants agreed to participate in this research from these contacts. Snowball sampling was used to recruit additional participants. This was an appropriate method to utilise in a housing community where people are known to each other (Parker et al. 2019). Snowball sampling garnered a further four participants. In total, 12 participants were recruited. This number was predominantly determined by the time constraints of the project. Still, it was in line with suggestions from Braun and Clarke (2013) surrounding participant numbers for a small research project. The 12 participants lived across eight different OCHT complexes. Eight were male, and four were female. Participants were aged between 41 years old and 71 + years old with 9 participants over 61 years old.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted using an interview guide that outlined various topics to guide the direction of the conversation. These topics surrounded the participants’ journey into social housing, their unit, the wider complex, the social environment and their movements in and around Christchurch City. Each interview was approximately one hour long, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The semi-structured format allowed for interviews to be conversational and build on any comments made by the participant that may be of interest to the study. The semi-structured format also allowed for ideas mentioned in previous interviews to be explored further when talking to proceeding participants (Schmidt 2004). The first nine interviews were conducted kanohi ki te kanohi (face to face) at a location appropriate to the participant. A subsequent change in New Zealand’s COVID-19 response framework meant the final three interviews were conducted over the phone.

Once all transcription and checking had been completed, a thematic analysis was undertaken. The thematic analysis followed a six-step process outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). These steps were: familiarisation with data, generating data codes, grouping codes to establish initial themes, revision of themes and finally, defining and naming themes to present and discuss results (Braun and Clarke 2006, 2013). The lead author began by reading all interview transcripts to become familiar with the content. They then conducted coding to identify relevant labels. Once each interview had been coded, these were amalgamated into a more extensive set of codes that reflected all twelve interviews. From here, duplicate codes were removed. The produced codes were then grouped to generate categories as related to aspects of experience. These groupings provided the initial stages of locating the themes in the data. Step four involved reviewing and refining these themes.

Ethical approval for this research was granted by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee, reference number 21/130. Māori consultation was undertaken through the Māori Research Advisor at the University of Otago’s Christchurch Campus.

Results

The following section groups the findings of this research into two key headings. The first, ‘Social Housing Placement’, begins by discussing the circumstances people were in before reaching out for social housing placement. It then recounts the experiences tenants had when accessing housing assistance and how they now view their resulting housing placement. The second section is titled ‘Creating Community’ and explores how a sense of community is created and maintained in a social housing complex. Quotations in this section have been drawn from anonymised transcripts where participants have been assigned a Māori pseudonym. This decision has been made to help protect personal identity, humanise the data and recognise participants’ cultural backgrounds (Allen and Wiles 2016).

Social housing placement: the foundation of experience

Participants first discussed their experiences of social housing with reference to the circumstances that resulted in them seeking housing assistance. Within these discussions, participants explained their own experiences of being homeless or without a house and how their entry into social housing was motivated by finding not only housing but also independence and autonomy.

I lived with both my sons and their families, and then it all got too much, and I went into a cottage in the back of somebody's garden … I just thought I'm all over the place. I’ve got stuff stored in the garage, under my bed and the wardrobe at someone's house, and it was that scattering.

– Mia

Within these discussions were mentions of the avenues people had taken to access housing support and entitlements. Participants discussed the vulnerability they experienced when reaching out for help and the whakamā or shame they felt in recognising they needed help. This shame was especially evident in circumstances where those spoken with had been offered support from friends but declined to take this so to keep their circumstances hidden from those around them.

You know who I am. I won't go to any of my friends. I don't like doing that because it makes you feel a bit little.

– Ihaia

I think a lot of it was asking for help, you know, because a lot of Māori step back … myself in this situation with having, not having a home, I had to say, ‘well look, I need help. I need someone. I need someone to find me somewhere to live.’

– Aria

Aria’s comment above recognises that people often needed the help of others or third-party organisations to navigate the process of acquiring placement within social housing. Many of those we talked to had utilised third-party organisations to navigate housing placement. This helped them to navigate not only the social welfare system but the presence of negative stigmatisation. Often it was the support of these organisations that helped people recognise their current living situation was not supporting their wellbeing.

I was living with a friend, well, a couple friends and, the trouble was they were into drugs, crack, and all this … Yeah, and so I thought, oh na, this is not the thing for me, so I went and saw a friend who works at The City Mission. She said that it was no good, and she put my name down on the housing register and about three or four weeks later, I got a call … 

– Matiu

Those who navigated the placement process independently discussed their experiences of stigmatisation in the social welfare system. Participants explained how they were advised social housing ‘wasn’t for them’ and recall being told about what sort of people social housing was for. These encounters presented participants with the notion that they were not in enough need of social housing as they did not fit the perceived stereotype of those meant to be accessing housing support.

So, I did apply through WINZ [Work and Income New Zealand], New Zealand Housing. But the lady was so horrible … Just mean to me. She said, ‘no, you don’t qualify, and you won't get a place and even if you did get a place, you could have a gang member next door, and you have no recourse’ … she was dreadful.

– Mia

Although tenants had differing experiences of housing placement, all were eventually placed into individual units located within one of OCHTs social housing complexes. These units were discussed by several participants as more than simply a house to live in. While placement into a unit had provided immediate shelter, participants also discussed their need to establish a home. Some participants discussed their living situation as one where they were away from their tūrangawaewae. Tūrangawaewae is defined by Cain et al. (2017, p. 8) as a ‘place of belonging where you draw your strength from, your standing place.’ The concept refers to a person’s connection to their surroundings, ancestral whenua and whakapapa (Morrish 2021). For others who were less connected with their ancestral whenua, their placement into a social housing unit was a chance to create a place of belonging. For many, this was their first home and this generated a profound sense of ownership, independence and autonomy.

So, I told her all I wanted was a little house that I could call home. I don’t care where it was or what it looked like as long as I had a place that I could call home … I love the thought of saying when I am with my friends, ‘oh well, I am going home’ I love that word, ‘I’m going home to my house’ I love that part of it. I haven’t had a home really for 11 years. And it’s just … And it’s mine.

– Aria

I think the thing I love about it is it is your own. You can do what you want when you want and not only that, it's a home that I've never had … See where I was brought up, when I was born, I was born in a cowshed. Dirt floors. Tilley lamps. There was no electricity. So, she was a good life, and I loved it. When I left it, yeah, and being … living like this is like being like a king. Living like a king.

– Ihaia

The ways in which participants discussed the concept of home echoed the findings of research by Boulton et al. (2022) where, for Māori, home is about whānau, friends and communities. Home was discussed as much more than just their structural unit and in many cases was discussed in terms of the relationships people had built with other tenants. This was evident in comments surrounding the companionship and community tenants experienced within their housing complex.

Umm, the companionship, we were talking about that this morning. You know the comparison to living out in the community in a place, in a rental perhaps, and there is a good possibility of not even knowing your neighbours … Here you are guaranteed that you’ve got someone.

– Mikaere

Mikaere’s reference to a feeling of companionship ties to the concept of community which was discussed by several participants as one of the aspects of social housing that they benefited from. Forrest and Kearns (2001, p. 2131) refer to a sense of community as ‘the capacity to act collectively.’ This ability to work collectively creates shared goals and an environment where people who share mutual trust feel supported. Participants discussed how the presence of community in their housing complex and subsequent feelings of companionship were also linked to the design and layout of the built environment.

Creating community: an interplay between the social and built environment

Participants discussed the form of their housing complexes as if they were talking about small-scale neighbourhoods with distinct social and spatial characteristics. Each housing complex had a distinctive identity with boundaries determined by residents and different levels of community engagement. Community engagement was built on tenant interaction and establishing social networks with other tenants. Some participants discussed a lack of engagement in their complex but commented on how this was something they would like to see more of. One participant also commented on the collective nature of Māoritanga and how critical social engagement and establishing connections between people was for Māori.

Yes, my friend, I noticed a lot more. Our Māori residents have friends over nearly every night. So, they are not alone, and we are a people that need other people.

– Taika

Other participants described the communal nature of their surroundings and a presence of community they felt had been established by tenants.

… so, it has changed a lot, but it still has its lovely aspects and that community spirit … It needs to be fostered. We are lucky.

– Nikau

Yeah, because you can walk in and, I looked at another place, over the other way, but it didn’t have a good feeling … Yeah, it needs to be right, and you’ve got a really lovely, there is a community feel amongst the different people here as well.

– Aria

Participants identified the importance of having spaces to engage with each other and how this helped to facilitate a sense of community. These conversations were predominantly centred on community halls or lounges but included other built spaces such as courtyards and barbeque areas too.

If we didn’t have that hall, I couldn’t imagine what it would be like … And it was, you really noticed it in that year. The whole place sort of became very disjointed, separated like before that there was stuff that happened and then when that stuff didn’t happen anymore, people just sort of went their own ways or entered their little caves and didn’t come out.

– Mikaere

This place would be completely different without the hall.

– Te Ariki

Communal spaces were also discussed for their importance to Māori culture. When asked about other expressions of Māori culture such as carvings or signage a number noted these were not present in their complex. It was seen as more important by participants to have spaces to come together and engage with each other. Many did not think physical expressions of Māori culture such as carvings and signs were necessarily a good idea but commented on the importance of having spaces to come together and engage with each other.

Oh yes, definitely [communal space]. I thought you meant just in physical sort of things like signs or carvings … . No, I do. I think definitely you have got to [have communal spaces]. Māori are good, how can I put this without sounding like a dickhead? Good Māori are able to, are very good at communalising, finding each other … and with finding each other, that generally means other people as well.

– Mikaere

Participants described differing levels of engagement within their housing complexes; for some, engagement was facilitated by organised activities. These activities took place in communal spaces such as halls or lounges and included karaoke, singing groups, games nights, language classes, shared meals and even happy hours. Several participants discussed the importance of these activities in bringing tenants together both within and between different housing complexes.

Oh, they do everything here together … You know, and we involve a lot of clients from other complexes … and a few others that come here because of karaoke because they don't have it at theirs [their complexes], so they come over.

– Ihaia

Other tenants mentioned that limited interaction between tenants meant their complex lacked a sense of community. This was discussed by one tenant whose housing complex was described as disjointed in both its built design and in the way tenants interacted with one another. These comments highlighted the importance of having communal spaces available for tenants to interact within.

Well, I would change the concept of social housing … It ain’t social. There’s nothing social about social housing.

– Manaia

While having communal space was discussed as essential in facilitating interaction, participants equally mentioned the importance of having strong leadership within their tenant base. Those we talked to discussed the presence of key leaders within their complex and how they were influential in organising activities and maintaining a sense of community. One tenant was also described as a kaumatua (elder) to the complex for the role he played in organising events and bringing people together. Essentially, both facilities and leadership were needed to maintain social cohesion and a sense of community within each housing complex.

It does take the, I mean, you could have the best hall in the world, but if you didn’t have the right, a couple of those sort of [leaders] and a few of the other people, leaders here, then it wouldn’t happen.

– Mikaere

Well, there is sort of a community hall sort of thing, but there is nothing really [done] there. One of the, an old lady that used to live here before she died used to organise a lot of social things and stuff like … but since she died they, nobody has sort of been interested in taking it over … That sort of really takes that person to bring everybody together. I haven’t seen anybody that is like that since that woman died. There is a new fella, an old fella who has just moved in a couple of flats down from me, and he is a bit like that. He is 75, and he still works quite a bit like a builder. And just like the immediate neighbours, he sort of gets together sort of thing and I imagine if he was full time not working then that is the sort of thing he might do.

– Wiremu

Tenants also discussed leadership concerning OCHTs role in encouraging engagement within the housing complexes they managed. While comments were generally positive, several participants felt some of the activities that were considered valuable and once operated by OCHT had ceased and there wasn't an indication these would be organised again.

We used to be really good. They [OCHT] used to have courses, and then due to constraints or money, they got rid of a lot of people. We used to have an awesome few that used to do stuff for us, but now they have nothing. It’s basically … Yeah, they were the provider, but now we have been left on our own.

– Matiu

Essentially, tenants explained there were many factors needed for a perceived sense of community to be created and maintained. The level to which this occurred also depended on where you lived and whom you lived with.

Discussion

This research aimed to explore the Māori lived experience of social housing in Ōtautahi Christchurch. Though the project had a limited time frame, it has generated results that provide insight into these varied experiences. Results describe the experience of social housing as beginning with the process of tenant placement. This process is one characterised by the negotiations a person has with themselves and the social welfare system. For many Māori, accessing housing entitlements can be imbued with feelings of shame and displacement. Tenants discussed displacement with reference to a personal need to find a place of belonging and mana motuhake (independence) in new and unfamiliar settings. Once placed within a housing complex a tenant’s experience was not only influenced by where they lived but the connections they made with the social environment of their housing complex. Participants placed a sense of importance on the intangible elements of their housing complex and many were clear in articulating how community was influenced by the surrounding built environment. These comments highlight the role that housing providers have in supporting Māori into social housing placements that foster elements of belonging, independence and community. Achieving these elements through well matched tenant placement works to create ongoing positive social housing experiences.

Before tenants reached out for social housing they were in a position of housing need. For many, they were also experiencing a disconnection from whānau, friends and whenua. While being housed provides immediate shelter it also provides the opportunity to create a place of independence and belonging. A sense of belonging is what sees houses become homes and is tied to a contemporary interpretation of the traditional concept of tūrangawaewae or ‘having a place to stand’ (Brown 2016). Boulton et al. (2022) discuss Māori conceptualisations of home and the distinction between the house and a home. For Māori, a home is a place imbued with meaning and connection. This idea builds on existing literature which discusses how tūrangawaewae can be established in new settings where people form attachments to place (Brown 2016; Cain et al. 2017). Participants that had never known their ancestral whenua, or were presently disconnected from it, had instead found a sense of belonging where they now lived. This understanding of place reflected contemporary circumstances and justified a contemporary interpretation of tūrangawaewae, which focused on the connections many tenants had to their community within their housing complex.

Participants discussed the placement process with a focus placed on the negotiations they had with themselves, whānau, friends and third-party organisations. Tenants explained how reaching out for housing assistance was mediated by a constant doubt that they did not fit the mould of those in need of support. These negotiations reflected the complex power dynamics woven into our social welfare system, particularly housing support services (Lewis et al. 2020). Previous studies have discussed the stigmatisation experienced by people receiving welfare in New Zealand and recognised the increased burden of stigmatisation Māori face when accessing social welfare services (Beddoe and Keddell 2016). To be part of a stigmatised group is to be othered from the accepted mainstream (Goffman 1963). While seeking housing support, participants were faced with encounters that reinforced the pre-existing stigma associated with social housing. This was another point of negotiation where social housing applicants had to contend with their inclusion into this often-stigmatised group.

Through placement into a social housing complex, participants established a home that provided a sense of independence and autonomy that was unfamiliar to them. This autonomy is foundational to the Māori sense of self and is embodied in principles such as mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga (Cram and Munro 2020). Housing placement resulted in a personal sense of security and independence afforded by the opportunity to create a home. This finding represents how for many participants being housed was the fulfilment of more than just housing needs. The independence found in having a house that tenants could call home was a rebalancing of the uneven power dynamics some participants had experienced before their placement (Chisholm et al. 2020). This independence and autonomy saw many tenants reflect on how different tenant experiences intersected in the housing complex and how this formed the resulting social environment. More specifically, how people came together to create a collective sense of community or in some cases, how an absence of interaction meant this collectively had not yet been realised.

Establishing a sense of community was influenced by an interplay between the social and physical environment. Creating a sense of community was also dependent on having a group of people that shared collective norms and mutual trust to maintain social interaction (Horelli 2013; Zhu 2015). Like existing literature, the findings reinforce that creating and maintaining a sense of community is a process founded on mutual trust between tenants, the success of which required leadership by those with a strong community ethos (Robinson and Williams 2001; Zhu 2015). The presence of a sense of community was also fundamentally based on interaction. Tenant interaction is influenced by communal areas that facilitate formal and informal interaction, allowing tenants to develop social networks and capital (Horelli 2013). As these networks grow, the sense of community within a complex is reinforced through organised activities (Carroll et al. 2015). Participants who discussed the presence of social networks also mentioned the existence of organised activities which were inclusive and wide-ranging. From cultural classes to gardening between neighbours, all were discussed as ways in which tenants came together to strengthen the social networks in individual housing complexes.

Concerning the representation of Māori culture within the housing complex, most participants were not aware of any existing representations of Māori culture within their complexes. When asked about introducing tangible expressions of Te Ao Māori, such as signage and native plantings tenants were largely indifferent. While some people agreed it could work many tenants discussed the intangible expressions of Māori culture as more important to them than physical representations of culture. There was an indication that people felt the manifestations of community they had created were more critical in supporting their own cultural needs. This indicates that if changes are to be made to reflect Te Ao Māori in facilities, these need to be more than simply physical representations. Changes need to embody and support foundational concepts of connection and interaction (Hoskins et al. 2002; Rolleston and Awatere 2009).

The findings of this research provide insight into how social housing can better support Māori tenant wellbeing. They have illustrated how influential housing policy and design can be in creating positive social environments for tenants. The Government has a responsibility to ensure Māori are provided for in Aotearoa as laid out in their commitments to Te Tiriti. These responsibilities extend to ensuring culturally appropriate housing and social housing provision that meets the needs of Māori tenants (Rankine 2005; Rigby 2019). Māori wellbeing is contingent on elements of connection and establishing relationships between people and places. Housing plays a foundational role in people achieving good health and there is a role for social housing to support this too (Cole 2020). Supporting wellbeing through social housing is conditional on developing public housing complexes that recognise Māori conceptualisations of home are based on belonging and connection. Housing complexes that support this are those that encourage tenant interaction through dedicated communal spaces and provide avenues for tenants to build social connections and community. That aside, it is imperative that communal spaces are established alongside systems that integrate tenants into existing social networks and support the maintenance of these relationships through leading activities that bring people together. Finding a balance between both aspects of physical design and community leadership creates engagement which helps ensure tenants build a sense of belonging to their place of residence. Participants who lived in housing complexes that had achieved this balance reported feeling supported and at home through the positive experiences they had with elements of community engagement.

This understanding of social housing experience for Māori tenants culminates in a need to ensure Māori principles are considered in the design and operation of social housing complexes. Not only is a partnership between the State and Māori reflective of the partnership inherent in Te Tiriti, but it is also required to ensure Māori social housing tenants are housed appropriately (Hoskins 2004; Rigby 2019). This need for appropriate housing policy is supported by literature focusing on how housing can support Māori wellbeing through housing design (Cram and Munro 2020). Design principles such as kotahitanga, manaakitanga and whanaungatanga bear similarities with other collective housing models such as co-housing, and all relate to community, connection and the environment (Rolleston and Awatere 2009). They follow Hoskins et al. (2002) conceptualisation of home as the kāinga (village), where interactions mediated by communal space aid in the provision of housing that supports Māori wellbeing. The utilisation of Māori design frameworks in modern housing developments is exemplified in work by Te Hau Āwhiowhio ō Otangarei Trust based in Whangārei, which has utilised a papakāinga framework in their development of transitional housing (Te Hau Āwhiowhio ō Otangarei Trust 2022). The project has been built in association with the Ministry of Housing and Te Puni Kōkiri the Ministry of Māori Affairs. It constitutes a cluster of units surrounding a common whare or meeting house. This allows a space for tenants to engage and support one another (Wood 2019).

As it stands, the current 2021–2024 Public Housing Plan is on track to deliver more than 18,000 public housing placements by 2024 (Ministry of Housing and Urban Development 2021). This delivery also takes a partnership approach and recognises the role of third-party providers such as iwi and Community Housing Providers in meeting housing provision aims. The Public Housing Plan also recognises the role of understanding localised housing need and states:

In working with our partners to implement the Public Housing Plan, Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga - Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (the Ministry) will take both a Kaupapa Māori (Te Maihi o te Whare Māori) and place-based approach to refine our understanding of local and community need, continue to identify priority focus areas for public housing supply, and deliver solutions that meet the immediate and long-term needs of vulnerable individuals, whānau and communities. (Ministry of Housing and Urban Development 2021, p. 1)

The introduction of a Kaupapa Māori framework to housing is encouraging. However, as it stands, this looks to be focused on iwi providers. There is an opportunity to extend principles included in Māori housing approaches such as those presented by Rolleston and Awatere (2009) to all public housing settings. The inclusion of Māori frameworks in other forms of social housing would recognise Māori tenant housing across the sector. It is also important to note that these principles would not be exclusively beneficial to Māori tenants. Further analysis of current policy and its aims is outside the scope of this research. Still, we want to acknowledge the introduction of this partnership approach and its recognition of Māori approaches.

Conclusion

This research sought to understand how social housing was experienced by Māori tenants, recognising an overrepresentation of Māori in housing need and tenanting social housing across Aotearoa. The experience of participants was influenced by people establishing a tūrangawaewae (a place of belonging), mana motuhake (a sense of independence) and the creation and maintenance of whakawhanaungatanga (relationships and connection). The findings explore how influential aspects of building design, social interaction and leadership can be in governing differences in experiences of social housing between complexes and tenants. The balance of these factors can create vast differences in lived experience between complexes and tenants. If there is one key message that has emerged throughout this research, it is that social housing has the potential to do much more than simply house those in need. Through constructing housing design and provision frameworks that recognise the importance of relationships, there is potential to create developments that better meet the responsibilities of the State in supporting the wellbeing of Māori social housing tenants.

Acknowledgements

Those involved with conducting this research would like to thank first and foremost the participants who shared their experiences and knowledge. Thanks are also extended to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust for supporting The National Science Challenges ACTIVATION research project. Additionally, we would like to thank the University of Otago and the ACTIVATION research project for financial support to undertake this research and write this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded through an University of Otago Māori Master's Research Scholarship and Master's Postgraduate Publishing Bursary. It was additionally supported through project funding from the Activating Change Through Interventions for Active Travel In Our Neighbourhoods (ACTIVATION) research project which has been funded by Ageing Well and Healthier Lives National Science Challenges.