Your search

Indigenous peoples often have a unique and deep connection to the land. However, quantitative research exploring this issue is scarce. The current research investigates cultural variation in environmental regard in New Zealand, where more recent settler groups have questioned the strength of Indigenous environmental regard. Study 1 examined differences in environmental regard held by Indigenous and non-Indigenous ethnic groups in a nationally representative data set, the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (N = 9,269). Māori (the Indigenous group) expressed the highest levels of regard for the environment on average, although there was also considerable variance among Māori as a group. Study 2 adopted an emic perspective to investigate which dimensions of Māori identity are related to higher environmental value specifically among Māori (N = 193). Bayesian regression indicated that sociopolitical consciousness—the extent to which participants recognize the importance of and stand up for Māori political rights—was linked with higher environmental regard. Contrary to predictions, belief in Māori spiritual concepts was not linked with increased environmental regard. These findings suggest that Māori tend to value the natural environment more than non-Indigenous New Zealanders at least in part because high environmental regard is central to Māori political consciousness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

In response to widespread water quality and quantity issues, the New Zealand Government has recently embarked on a number of comprehensive freshwater management reforms, developing a raft of national discussion and policy documents such as "Freshwater Reform 2013 and Beyond" and a National Policy Statement for freshwater management (NPS-FM 2014). Recent resource management reforms and amendments (RMA 2014), based on previous overarching resource management legislation (RMA 1991), set out a new approach and pathway to manage freshwater nationwide. Internationally, there is an increasing trend to engage with indigenous communities for research and collaboration, including indigenous groups as active participants in resource management decision making. What is driving this change toward more engagement and collaboration with indigenous communities is different for each country, and we document the progress and innovation made in this area in New Zealand. The indigenous rights of Māori in New Zealand are stated in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi and in many forms of New Zealand's legislation. Local and central governments are eager to include local indigenous Māori groups (iwi/hapū) in freshwater management planning processes through meaningful engagement and collaboration. Key to the success of collaborative planning processes for Māori are enduring relationships between local government and Māori, along with adequate resourcing for all partners contributing to the collaborative process. A large number of shared governance and management models for natural resource management have emerged in New Zealand over the past 20 years, and some recent examples are reviewed. We provide some discussion to improve understanding and use of the terms used in these management models such as cogovernance, comanagement, and coplanning, and describe some of the more important frameworks and tools being developed with Māori groups (e.g., iwi/hapū), to strengthen Māori capacity in freshwater management and to support good collaborative process and planning.

Who gets to define belonging? The nation state or its citizens? The government or civil society? This article argues that, for Māori, citizenship is and has been contested and conditional. It examines the history of belonging in New Zealand, from the Treaty of Waitangi to the Citizenship Act 1977, and recommends a framework for teaching belonging and citizenship to Māori students. The idea underpinning the framework is that teaching citizenship means teaching history, or the relationship between the postcolonial state and its indigenous citizens.

This article examines why and how scholars should acknowledge and name each of the diverse political actors and institutions that typically are objectified as ‘indigenous peoples’ on the global stage, or ‘Māori’ in New Zealand. For instance, rather than suggesting a political relationship or conflict exists between ‘Māori and the Crown’, political scientists and theorists should name the political actors and political institutions for which Māori is a shorthand, for example, ‘Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (the corporate entity of the Ngai Tahu whanui) and the Committee of Tuahiwi Marae disagreed with the Crown’. A variety of reasons are discussed as to why this objectification of Māori (and any other indigenous population) as a single political actor has occurred, the problems are pointed out, and a range of examples are given. Not every use of the terms ‘Māori’, ‘indigenous peoples’ or similar descriptors in political science stands in for a specific political actor (e.g. sometimes, it is suggesting a cleavage or a group at whom a policy is directed), but where scholars are describing or suggesting political action, they should be careful in their use of ethnic labels. I suggest that it would be more productive to study the specific contexts, intentions and actions of individuals and institutions that might consider indigeneity as being part of their identity.

The current model of ethical governance in research involving humans in the social sciences and humanities relies on prospective ethics review in ensuring that research in conducted ethically. One of its key features is distrust to researchers and their initiatives regardless of the subject matter, discipline, research methodology or settings, sources of funding, or researcher's experience. This article discusses the New Brunswick Declaration on Research Ethics adopted by the participants of the Ethics Rupture: Alternatives to Research-Ethics Review Summit in 2013. In particular, it provides background for the regulatory capture of the social sciences by the biomedical institutions of ethics review. It concludes by examining the limitations of the Declaration, and offers a set of principles for the development of the New Brunswick Declaration following its discussion at the Ethics in Practice: Tensions around Ethics Review and Maori Consultation Conference at the University of Otago in Dunedin in May 2015.

Maori tribal authorities have sought to measure the wellbeing of their people as a baseline for determining the extent to which their economic, social, and cultural goals are being achieved. In recent years, data from government-administered social surveys and/or censuses have become a significant source of information. Using the tribal authority of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (TRONT) as a case study, this paper explores and compares data concerning Ngai Tahu wellbeing contained in two recently completed TRONT reports: the Ngai Tahu State of the Nation 2015 report (a quantitative study derived from government-administered survey data); and, the preliminary findings from the Ngai Tahu Whenua Project (a qualitative study undertaken by TRONT). Both studies present similar results regarding levels of tribal economic wellbeing, however, they show different results in regards to levels of cultural wellbeing. The qualitative study reveals reasonably high levels of cultural engagement among participants. Conversely, the quantitative study demonstrates reasonably low levels of cultural engagement. The difference is explained in each study's approach to understanding culture. The quantitative study viewed culture as engagement in 'static' cultural practices, whereas the qualitative study viewed Maori culture as a 'lived' set of deep networks and connections between individuals, their whanau (extended family), and places of symbolic cultural importance (particularly land and water). It is argued that measuring 'lived' culture would provide a better means of ascertaining cultural wellbeing. It is suggested that a useful means of measuring Maori lived culture would be to determine the quality and depth of relational networks.