Guidelines for cross‐cultural Participatory Action Research partnerships: A case study of a customary seabird harvest in New Zealand

Møller, Henrik; Lyver, Philip O'b.; Bragg, Corey; Newman, Jamie; Clucas, R; Fletcher, David; Kitson, Jane; McKechnie, Sam; Scott, Darren

doi:10.1080/03014220909510152

Cited by 85 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Agrawal (2005) showed how involvement in monitoring itself has crucial roles in triggering individual transformation of the values and actions of environmental citizens. Mindful facilitation of such processes is considered necessary to create commitment, shared understanding and trust and to acknowledge and manage power asymmetries (Ansell and Gash 2008;Moller et al 2009;Barnaud and Van Paassen 2013). In summary, selection of indicators should be a process in which the stakeholders affected are involved, not just for the sake of participation (Bell and Morse 2008), but also to create relevant and context-specific assessments to improve sustainability performance (Binder et al 2010;Gasso et al 2015).…”

Section: Collaborative Processes and Participation As An Answer To Comentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Including all stakeholders may lead to wide-ranging goals, a broader focus and even inconclusiveness, which some professionals may find unsettling. It will also take much longer to establish monitoring and research because co-design and relationship building must occur first (Moller et al 2009). Participatory co-development should, however, be seen as a crucial process for the interpretation and operationalization of sustainability (Owens 2003).…”

Section: Collaborative Processes and Participation As An Answer To Comentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture

Olde

Møller

Marchand

et al. 2016

Environ Dev Sustain

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainability indicators are well recognized for their potential to assess and monitor sustainable development of agricultural systems. A large number of indicators are proposed in various sustainability assessment frameworks, which raises concerns regarding the validity of approaches, usefulness and trust in such frameworks. Selecting indicators requires transparent and well-defined procedures to ensure the relevance and validity of sustainability assessments. The objective of this study, therefore, was to determine whether 123Environ Dev Sustain DOI 10.1007/s10668-016-9803-x experts agree on which criteria are most important in the selection of indicators and indicator sets for robust sustainability assessments. Two groups of experts (Temperate Agriculture Research Network and New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard) were asked to rank the relative importance of eleven criteria for selecting individual indicators and of nine criteria for balancing a collective set of indicators. Both ranking surveys reveal a startling lack of consensus amongst experts about how best to measure agricultural sustainability and call for a radical rethink about how complementary approaches to sustainability assessments are used alongside each other to ensure a plurality of views and maximum collaboration and trust amongst stakeholders. To improve the transparency, relevance and robustness of sustainable assessments, the context of the sustainability assessment, including prioritizations of selection criteria for indicator selection, must be accounted for. A collaborative design process will enhance the acceptance of diverse values and prioritizations embedded in sustainability assessments. The process by which indicators and sustainability frameworks are established may be a much more important determinant of their success than the final shape of the assessment tools. Such an emphasis on process would make assessments more transparent, transformative and enduring.

show abstract

Section: Collaborative Processes and Participation As An Answer To Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Collaborative Processes and Participation As An Answer To Comentioning

confidence: 99%

When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture

Olde

Møller

Marchand

et al. 2016

Environ Dev Sustain

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Detailed tikanga (rules) include limits to when the islands can be accessed, provisions toward the protection of habitat and adult (breeding) birds, and directives to minimize waste (Kitson and Moller 2008). This largely sustainable harvest (e.g., Moller et al 2009) is underpinned by the responsibility for ensuring that future generations will be able to continue to harvest, which requires respect for, and guardianship of, the birds and their environment (Kitson and Moller 2008).…”

Section: Respectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Values-led management: the guidance of place-based values in environmental relationships of the past, present, and future

Artelle¹,

Stephenson²,

Bragg³

et al. 2018

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The prevalence of widespread, human-caused ecological degradation suggests that fundamental change is needed in how societies interact with the environment. In this paper we argue that durable models of environmental relationships already exist in approaches of place-based peoples, whose values connect people to their environments, provide guidance on appropriate behaviors, and structure sustained people-place relationships. To illustrate, we identify and discuss concordant values of indigenous peoples at opposite ends of the Pacific Ocean: the Māori of Aotearoa (New Zealand), and First Nations of the West Coast of Canada. We find that values of relatedness to, respect of, and reciprocity with other species and places correspond with sustained long-term relationships between people and places, and illustrate with examples from both regions. We propose that by integrating a values-led foundation into management broadly, values-led management could enable similar sustained relationships in places where they have been recently disrupted or where they are altogether lacking. We characterize values-led management as being founded on values that underpin stewardship-like relationships between people and place and that in turn guide related objectives, policies, and practices. We examine two contemporary values-led management plans that follow this structure, and provide additional examples of emergent values-led approaches elsewhere. From these we compile a set of questions that might guide the conception of place-based values-led management in decolonizing contexts, in contexts where people have a desire for place-based approaches but have not yet distilled foundational values for guidance, or in contexts where people have a united set of values but have not yet translated them into specific management approaches. We conclude by discussing both the challenges and learning opportunities that the resumption, or commencement, of values-led management might entail.

show abstract

“…Māori studies were taught at Auckland University from 1952 and at Victoria University of Wellington from 1967 [Mead, 1983], but there was little to no discussion of Mātauranga Māori in science until the 2000s [Jenkins and Pihama, 2001;Hirini, 2006;Henwood, 2007;Lyver et al, 2008;Crawford, 2009;Moller, 2009;Moller et al, 2009].…”

Section: -2000: Control Of Scientists and Scientific Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The emergence of science communication in Aotearoa New Zealand

Fleming¹,

Star²

2017

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The history of science communication in Aotearoa New Zealand starts with the stories told by the indigenous Māori people and has often been rooted in large, controversial environmental or technological issues. Although science communication in New Zealand began with a culture of wise men informing an uneducated public, by the 1990s it had begun to explore ideas of public outreach and engagement. Driven in part by the country's landscape and unique wildlife, media such as film documentary have risen to take centre stage in public engagement with science. Public radio also features in discussion of scientific issues. New centres for the training of science communicators have emerged and there is governmental and public support for science communication in New Zealand, as demonstrated by the number of awards and funding opportunities offered annually, for those who achieve. However a more critical and strategic approach to science communication in the future is needed if New Zealand wants a more science-literate public, and a more public-literate science community.

show abstract

Guidelines for cross‐cultural Participatory Action Research partnerships: A case study of a customary seabird harvest in New Zealand

Cited by 85 publications

References 48 publications

When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture

When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture

Values-led management: the guidance of place-based values in environmental relationships of the past, present, and future

The emergence of science communication in Aotearoa New Zealand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About