Ecosystem Services 27 (2017) 92–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecosystem Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /ecoser

Key Maori values strengthen the mapping of forest ecosystem services

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.0092212-0416/� 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

⇑ Corresponding author at: Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln 7640, NewZealand.

E-mail address: lyverp@landcareresearch.co.nz (P.O’B. Lyver).

Phil O’B. Lyver a,⇑, Puke Timoti b, Andrew M. Gormley a, Christopher J. Jones a, Sarah J. Richardson a,Brenda L. Tahi b, Suzie Greenhalgh c

a Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln 7640, New Zealandb T�uhoe Tuawhenua Trust, Private Bag 3001, Ruatahuna, via Rotorua, New Zealandc Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 20 April 2017Received in revised form 30 July 2017Accepted 17 August 2017Available online 29 August 2017

Keywords:ForestIndigenous peoplesLife forceMaoriReciprocityValues

Different value-belief systems influence the importance placed upon ecosystem services (ES) and theirbenefits, in particular cultural ecosystem services. We mapped forest values to interview narrativesacross four biocultural themes deemed relevant by Tuawhenua Maori in New Zealand: (1) importanceof place; (2) capacity of forest to provide; (3) connection between forest and community; and (4) futureaspirations. Mauri (life force), mahinga kai (food procurement), oranga (human well-being) and te ohangawhai rawa (economic development) were the values identified most frequently across the fourcommunity-based themes. Ahikaroa (connection with place) and mahinga kai were the most frequentlyassigned values to Themes 1 and 2 respectively, while mauri was the value expressed most frequentlyin relation to Themes 3 and 4. While provisioning services contribute to the immediate well-being ofindigenous peoples, cultural services associated with these activities are also vitally significant as theyconstitute the embodiment and growth of the culture and cannot be substituted. The comprehensivearticulation of indigenous peoples’ values within an ES framework can assist with developing a commonlanguage within environmental decision-making processes and tools across cultures.

� 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-NDlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Ecosystem services (ES) are functions of the natural world thatare beneficial to human beings (Fagerholm et al., 2012). The estab-lished ES framework includes provisioning services (e.g. freshwaterwater), regulating services (e.g. pollination), supporting services(e.g. soil formation) and cultural ecosystem services (CES; e.g.recreation) on which humans are fundamentally reliant (MEA,2005). The quantification and valuation of ES can be fraught andcomprised by subjectivity, CES are generally accepted to be themost difficult to measure because they are, by nature, often intan-gible (Daniel et al., 2012). CES are defined as the contributions byecosystems to non-material benefits (e.g. capabilities and experi-ences) that arise from complex and dynamic relationships betweenecosystems and humans (Chan et al., 2012a; Fagerholm et al.,2012). Six key CES benefits are typically recognised: (i) culturaldiversity and identity (e.g., sense of place); (ii) spiritual and reli-gious values, knowledge systems (e.g. education); (iii) inspiration(e.g., typically for the arts and folklore); (iv) aesthetic values; (v)

cultural heritage values, and (vi) recreation and ecotourism(Costanza et al., 1997; MEA, 2005).

The characterisation and relative emphasis on ES benefits, inparticular CES’s in different societies is influenced heavily by social,economic and political organisation and diverse societal world-views. Diverse cultural worldviews create differences in how soci-eties relate to, value and understand the environment. In a critiqueof the human-nature relationship within an ES framework, oneargument suggest that the framework separates people from theenvironment, which is contrary to an indigenous worldview as itpotentially promotes an exploitive human-nature relationship(Greenhalgh and Hart, 2015). A counter-argument however sug-gests that ES could reconnect society to nature through its CES(Greenhalgh and Hart, 2015). The central idea held by manyindigenous cultures that people are an integral part of nature hasled some studies to challenge the efficacy of aligning indigenouspeoples’ values within CES categories (Pert et al., 2015a). Theimportance of recreation and ecotourism and the aesthetic quali-ties of areas were identified as highly regarded values in westernsocieties with access to surplus wealth and leisure time (MEA,2005). In contrast, indigenous peoples have identified values suchas genealogy and cultural heritage (association with spiritual realmand ancestors; support for language and culture); sense of place

P.O’B. Lyver et al. / Ecosystem Services 27 (2017) 92–102 93

and kinship (internal community relationships, networks and con-nections); strong indigenous governance and regimes of joint man-agement; and stewardship which includes collective communityresponsibility for the environment that includes protection andrevitalization of culture as highly relevant to their communities(Graham et al., 2003; Gould et al., 2014; Gould et al., 2015; Lyveret al., 2016a). These differences have led some researchers to sug-gest that it would be more appropriate to align indigenous peoples’values to categories consistent with ‘‘interlinkages in bioculturaldiversity” (Hill et al., 2011; Pert et al., 2015a). It is therefore impor-tant to question whether the fundamental relationship betweenindigenous peoples’ and nature are appropriately accounted forwithin the ES framework (Walker, 2004).

The global significance of forests to humans means they have adeeply ingrained presence within value-belief systems of manycultures. Cultural heritage values associated with forests are linkedstrongly with peoples’ identities and association with place, cus-toms and protocols, stories, songs, dreaming and poetry(Edwards et al., 2016; Gould et al., 2014; Pert et al., 2015a;Plieninger et al., 2013). Indigenous forest peoples in particularexhibit a complex matrix of values that shape and guide their atti-tudes, beliefs and relationships with the forests in which they live(Rickenbach et al., 2017). The diversity in how forest CES are val-ued by different cultures however can create potential for conflictbetween user-groups (e.g. tourists and indigenous peoples), espe-cially as activities like recreation and tourism expand globally(e.g., Fagerholm et al., 2012). The political and social marginalisa-tion of indigenous peoples around the world means that their val-ues have often been subordinate to those of the dominant cultureand less well covered within ES assessments (McMichael et al.,2005; Pert et al., 2015a).

While recognising that challenges exist around identifying,describing and measuring CES from the perspective of indigenouspeople, an increasing number of studies have used participatoryapproaches to map indigenous perceptions of values and benefits(Chan et al., 2012b; Ens et al., 2015; Greenhalgh and Hart, 2015;Pert et al., 2015b). In this study, we initially mapped forest valuesto interview narratives across four themes deemed relevant byTuawhenua Maori in New Zealand: (i) importance of land and for-est; (ii) how have the forests and rivers provided for the commu-nity: (iii) connection between the health of the forest andcommunity; and (iv) the aspirations of the community for theirforests. The framing of interviews and alignment of values initiallyaround these four themes, rather than ES categories, provided con-text that community members were more familiar with than an ESframework. We follow Olson and Zanna (1993) in defining valuesas being ‘‘generally conceptualised as higher-order evaluative stan-dards, referring to desirable means and ends of action” (Rokeach,1973), which can be influenced heavily by culture, age, sex andrace (Timmer and Kahle, 1983). Therefore, the frequency of valuesacross two age groups was also assessed. Lastly, in the context ofour findings we examine whether ES categories provide an effec-tive framework to map indigenous peoples’ values. We considerhow the loss of key ES influences the viability of indigenous peo-ples cultures, in particular the delivery and expression of CES.

2. Methods

2.1. Background and study location

The Tuawhenua people are part of the larger T�uhoe nation, anindigenous Maori tribe from in and around the heavily forestedTe Urewera mountain ranges in the North Island of New Zealand(Fig. 1). Before the Crown-led land confiscations of the last 150years, the interests of the tribe extended throughout the Te Urew-

era – the area recognised as the homeland and storehouse of thetribe. The Tuawhenua settlement of Ruatahuna is located in thecentral part of Te Urewera and currently consists of approximately72 households clustered around 10 traditional marae (meetingplaces; Morunga and Tahi, 2013). The settlement is surroundedby approximately 20,000 hectares of lands of which more than95% is covered with mixed oceanic temperate rain forest. Theselands are owned by the various sub-tribes of Tuawhenua and man-aged in part by the T�uhoe Tuawhenua Trust. The area is also nes-tled within the much larger forested region of Te Urewera(�212,000 ha) – the area that was originally Te Urewera NationalPark but was devolved as part of co-management arrangementslegislated within T�uhoe’s Treaty of Waitangi land claim settlement(New Zealand Government, 2014).

Forest canopies on Tuawhenua lands are dominated by ever-green angiosperms such as tawa (Beilschmiedia tawa, Lauraceae)and tawhero (Weinmannia racemosa, Cunoniaceae) with emergentPodocarpaceae conifers (e.g. Prumnopitys spp., Dacrydium cupress-inum and Podocarpus spp.). These conifers are prized for their highquality timber and large size (>30 m height,>1m stem diameter).Selective logging between 1950 and 1975 by a private forestrycompanies removed a large proportion of the conifers from sec-tions of Tuawhenua lands, but in particular from alluvial terracesand accessible toe-slopes. Regeneration and post-logging recoveryhas been poor leading to the current dominance by shade-tolerantangiosperms, particularly tawa (Carswell et al., 2007). Current localeconomic development activities within Tuawhenua’s forests arelimited to small locally-run eco-tourism and apiculture businessesspecialising in guided bush treks and bush honey (e.g. manuka,Leptospermum scoparium) production respectively.

The rivers and forests around Ruatahuna have historically pro-vided the community with a valued source of native biota for food(e.g., kerer�u, New Zealand pigeon, Hemiphaga novaeseelandiaenovaeseelandiae; tuna, long-fin eel, Anguilla dieffenbachii); medici-nal plants, construction materials (e.g., totara, Podocarpus totara);clothing products (e.g., mauku, hen and chicken fern, Aspleniumbulbiferum); firewood (e.g., tawa); and sites for cultural (e.g., waahitapu, sacred sites) and recreational (e.g., camping) activities. Popu-lation declines in some native flora and fauna together with protec-tive government conservation legislation has increasinglyrestricted access and availability of native species to Maori overthe last century. Subsequently some exotic species within the for-est are now also valued as sources of meat (e.g. red deer Cervus ela-phus, feral pig Sus scrofa) and fur (e.g. Australian brushtail possumTrichosurus vulpecula). These exotic species however lack the cul-tural significance and expressions associated with much of thenative flora and fauna. While less than a quarter of the Tuawhenuacommunity now regularly enter and use the forest each week (�3times per week; Lyver et al., 2016b) they continue to associate withthe forest and its waterways for spiritual, intellectual and physicalsustenance.

2.2. Survey interviews with Tuawhenua forest users

This study emerged from discussions between researchers andthe Tuawhenua community as part of a 15-year forest research ini-tiative. As a first step the concept was formally introduced to Tua-whenua Trust members for feedback, and then to the widerTuawhenua community through a series of workshops. Guidelinesand ethical approval to conduct the research were considered andapproved as part of a Memorandum of Understanding between thehost research institute, Landcare Research, and T�uhoe TuawhenuaTrust. In addition, a signed Cultural Safety Agreement betweenindividual researchers and the Tuawhenua Trust detailed obliga-tions around prior and informed consent, intellectual propertyand ownership of traditional and scientific knowledge, confiden-

Fig. 1. Location of the Tuawhenua region and community of Ruatahuna within the forested mountainous region of Te Urewera in the North Island of New Zealand (Lyver et al.2016b).

94 P.O’B. Lyver et al. / Ecosystem Services 27 (2017) 92–102

tiality, reporting back to the community, process for the release ofresults and breaches of the agreement, and researcher accountabil-ity to the Tuawhenua community.

The aim of our enquiry was to understand how Tuawhenua val-ued their forests, lands and waterways. From initial discussionswith the T�uhoe Tuawhenua Trust members four central themesemerged as fundamentally important for the community: (i) theimportance of the forests to the community – ‘importance’; (ii)how forests and rivers generally provided for the community –‘provisioning’; (iii) the nature of the connection between the healthof the forest and community – ‘connection’, and; (iv) the aspira-tions of the community for their forests – ‘aspirations’. Our enquirytherefore focused on these broad themes and used semi-directedinterview questions to avoid interviewer bias.

During 2013 and 2014, we conducted 39 interviews with mem-bers from the Ruatahuna community. We interviewed the majorityof participants individually, but three interviews were conductedwith two or more participants (29 male, 14 female; aged 21–83years). The Tuawhenua authors (PT and BT) selected interview par-ticipants based on an individual’s exposure to teachings duringtheir upbringing and their practical expertise and experience withthe forest. Although some participants lived outside Ruatahuna atthe time of the interview, all were originally from the community.All interviews were conducted in the Maori language, but latertranscribed and translated into English before the content andtranslations were verified by local research assistants fluent inthe local T�uhoe dialect.

2.3. Identification and mapping of Tuawhenua values to the fourcentral themes

Based on their professional and personal experience, twoauthors (PL and PT) created an initial set of values for codingagainst the interview narrative (Table 1). This values set wasreviewed, added to, and verified by a small group of Tuawhenuaelders in one-on-one meetings. Further values were identifiedand added during the inter-rater assessment process. Five inter-views were first coded independently by PL and PT and then the

consistency in the assignment of values to narratives was assessed.Conflicts over the assignment of values to sections of transcript andthe addition of any new values were resolved by joint discussionand agreement between PL and PT. The remaining 34 interviewtranscripts were then reviewed and values assigned by PL and PTto the narratives. More than one value could be assigned to a pas-sage of narrative. The type of questions asked and the nature ofresponses from participants determined the mapping of interviewnarrative and values to one of the four central themes (and ES).

Consideration of the range of values, their definition and howthey were assigned to interview transcripts within each of thethemes was conducted with a group of the original participantsin a one-day workshop. The workshop was attended by 11 partic-ipants (mean age 67 years; age range 61–80 years) and conductedprimarily in the Maori language. How to treat the universal con-cepts of tapu (sacredness, something that is forbidden or set apartwith an untouchable quality) and noa (without restriction or with-out conditions) was discussed. Both these concepts were consid-ered inherent within all values defined therefore were nottreated as separate values.

2.4. Analysis of forest values

We recorded whether each participant identified a forest value(1) or not (0) within an interview narrative aligned to each the fourcentral themes. We used a binomial scoring system rather than afrequency score to negate any potential bias caused by variationsin the degree of emphasis an interviewee placed on a value. Asan indicator of the relative importance of the values expressedby interviewees, we summarised and compared the percentagesof interviews across all four themes in which each value was men-tioned according to age class. This process was then repeated foreach theme independently.

For each forest value, we first summed the number of inter-views where it was assigned at least once to the narrative andexpressed this as a percentage of the total possible score (43 par-ticipants ⁄ 4 themes = 172). We then assigned participants intotwo age classes: �60 years (n = 22) and >60 years (n = 21) and

Table 1Value acronyms, descriptions and definitions coded to the transcripts of 39 semi-directed interviews conducted with T�uhoe Tuawhenua elders and forest users (n = 43participants; age range = 21–83 years) in 2014.

Valueacronym

Value description(Maori language)

Valuedescription

Ecosystem servicecategory

Value definition

AHI Ahikaroa (Taura here) Maintainingconnection toplace

Cultural Long burning fires (connection), the action of being connected to place andcommunity. The maintenance of fires on the land or in the environment; The glow ofthe fire represents your existence on a particular land area or environment.Continuity (total existence) with place and land, binding connection.

ATA Ataahua Aesthetics offorest

Cultural The beauty of the forest environment. Pristine and cleanliness (e.g. white floralblooms in the forest canopy give it the appearance of a bride).

KAI Kaitiakitanga Environmentalguardianship

Cultural The exercise of power, control or authority over a particular place or environment, away of managing the environment or species based on Maori worldview principles,including strategies like rahui (temporary harvest bans). Rahui is a form of tapu (to beset apart) as a mechanism of protection, maintenance and memorial (e.g. when anaccidental death has happened in the vicinity a rahui will be temporarily establishedas a mark of respect and lifted by the kaitiaki).

KOH Koha /Whakaaro Gift Provisioning, Cultural Gift, reciprocity, offering, healing, revitalisation. Maintaining social relationships (Agift in thought).

KTO Korero tawhito Stories of old Cultural History and memories of land and people including knowledge of land, dwellings oftaniwha (guardians), waahi tapu (sacred sites) including urupa (burial grounds),groves of toromiro (Prumnopitys ferruginea) for harvesting kerer�u, knowledge ofpeople, transfer of land, stories held within the creation of natural world,cosmological concepts, moral direction or guidance

MAA Manaakitanga Practice ofcaring

Cultural Great compassion and affection. Camaraderie, the practice of bonding or stayingbonded.

MAN Mana Authority Cultural Authority, prestige, high standingMAR Maramatanga Wisdom and

understandingCultural Clearly understands, competent in their practice. The ability to show a clear

understanding of something or someoneMAT Matauranga Threads of

truth/knowledgeCultural Maori knowledge and understanding. A unique Maori way of knowing.

MAU Mauri taiao Ecologicalintegrity

Supporting,Regulating,Provisioning, Cultural

The essential quality and vitality of a being (vital essence, life force and principle) amaterial symbol of life. Mauri is a concept that describes the representativeness andcondition of the relationships and responsibilities between elements of whakapapaandwhanaungatanga (defined below). Mauri also denotes the interconnectedness andappropriate sequential order of elements within whakapapa and whanaungatanga.

MKA Mahinga kai Foodprocurement

Provisioning Cultivating of food and food gathering. The environment is seen as the pantry for thepeople. Securing food for sustenance or for sustaining the people and environment(not to be abused).

OHW Te ohanga whai rawa Growing thenest

Provisioning Economic development and employment.

ORA Oranga Human well-being

Cultural The ability to provide physical wellness.

RAN Rangatiratanga/manamotuhake

ChieflyAutonomy

Cultural Political agency and self-governance; Unbroken sovereign authority

REO Te reo Language Cultural Maori languageNMP Nga mahi parekareka Recreation Cultural The feeling of pleasure and enjoyment. Takatakap�utea and Marere-o-tonga are

recognised by T�uhoe as the origin of ‘nga mahi a te Rehia’ the art of amusement andpleasure. Rehia became the denizen of arts and amusement – a close relation to Tanerore the origin of dance.

NTT Nga taonga tuku iho otuawhakarere

Traditionaltreasures

Provisioning Something handed down, an heirloom, cultural property, or tools crafted from naturalresources (e.g., the water trough used for attracting kerer�u, New Zealand pigeon,Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae to snares); traditional medicines,weaving, carving and the art of tattoo.

TKP Te kiri o Papa Skin of MotherEarth

Supporting,Regulating

Elements and features of the natural world (e.g., flora, fauna, fungi; forests, mountainsand rivers); natural resources

TIK Tikanga Traditions Cultural Traditions, protocols and customs, this includes conducting prayers.TOH Tohu Indicators Cultural Signs, signals, indicators to understand the world or changes in the environmentTOI T�uakiritanga-a-iwi Cultural identity Cultural Something that is unique to you (the art of being a person or uniqueness)TWA Tangata whenua People of the

landCultural An individual or group who is naturalised, acclimatised or established in the land and

holds respect of sub-tribe and family. The individual or group exhibits the traits ofcommunity caring.

WAI Wairua Spiritualdimension

Cultural Spirituality, The spiritual essence or soul carried within a person (or other life forms)which is released at the point of death. Wairua refers to the unseen realm thatconnected the past, the present and the future.

WHA Whakapapa andwhanaungatanga

Genealogy andkinship

Cultural A sequential system that portrays more than just the narrow approach of ancestrallineage or heritage between humans. Whakapapa refers to the interconnectednessbetween all elements of the living and non-living realms. It refers to the tangible andintangible genealogical connections, relationships, and linkages between the naturalenvironment and the cosmological domain. Inter-relationships, kinship, sense offamily connection and collective responsibility – a relationship through sharedexperiences and working together which provides people with a sense of belonging.

WHN Whenua Land andenvironment

Cultural Land and environment (including longing for place and home)

WKA Whakamana Enactment ofauthority

Cultural Enactment of mana; personal agency and engagement. Authorise, legitimise and givepower to give effect to.

(continued on next page)

P.O’B. Lyver et al. / Ecosystem Services 27 (2017) 92–102 95

Table 1 (continued)

Valueacronym

Value description(Maori language)

Valuedescription

Ecosystem servicecategory

Value definition

WKP Whakapapa Genealogy Cultural Genesis, knowing where you come from. A connection to place, land and community.Inter-relatedness and connection within natural and spiritual worlds

WTA Whangai tamariki Culturaladoption

Cultural Adoption and guidance by elders. The practice of an elder nurturing or instructing achild or youth (traditional method of knowledge transfer and maintaining the widerfamily linkages through adoption)

96 P.O’B. Lyver et al. / Ecosystem Services 27 (2017) 92–102

repeated the above for each age class (total possible scores: � 60years of age: 22 participants ⁄ 4 themes = 88; >60 years of age:21 participants ⁄ 4 themes = 84). This age division was usedbecause persons in the Tuawhenua community are usually consid-ered to be elders once they reach the age of 60 years. We appliedKendall’s tau rank correlation coefficient (Kendall, 1938) to testwhether the ranking of values varied between older and youngerinterviewees. Under this test, the null hypothesis states that thereis no association between the ranks of two data sets. We then fol-lowed the same ranking process for each of the four themes sepa-rately, and for both age classes within themes. Also, to assess thelinkage between values, the frequency that values were assignedtogether (pairings) to specific sections of interview narrative wascalculated.

3. Results

3.1. Cumulative rankings of forest values across the four key themes

Mauri (life essence; 51% of participants) and mahinga kai (foodprocurement; 48% of participants) were the two values most fre-quently assigned to interviews across the four themes combined(Fig. 2). Despite the majority of values being concomitant withCES, two of the top four most frequently assigned values werelinked to provisioning ES (Table 1; Fig. 2). Overall there was strong

Fig. 2. Relative ranking and scores (%) of forest values expressed by Tuawhenuaparticipants in the different age classes (�60 years; n = 22 participants; and>60 years; n = 21 participants) across the four key themes (a) Importance, (b)Provision, (c) Connection and (d) Aspirations combined. See Methods for adescription relating to the calculation of percentage scores, and Table 1 fordefinitions of value acronyms.

evidence for agreement between the two age classes around thefrequency of values assigned across the four themes (Kendall’stau = 0.77, p-value < 0.001; Fig. 2).

3.2. Theme 1: Alignment of values around the importance of lands andforests to Tuawhenua

Ahikaroa (connection to place) was the value identified mostfrequently in narrative about the importance of lands, forests andrivers (Fig. 3a). It was also a value that paired most frequently withwhakapapa (genealogy), whenua (land and environment) andoranga (well-being; Table 2). Ahikaroa and whakapapa were thevalues most commonly assigned to younger participants whereasahikaroa and wairua (spirituality) most frequently aligned withthe older age group (Fig. 4a).

‘‘The vision for our children is that these lands remain undercommunity management and that we all can participate inthe decision making concerning our lands. We need to activelymaintain and exercise our right to self-management within ourforest boundaries” (Taawi Te Kurapa, Ruatahuna, 2014).

‘‘Our genealogical ties [to the land] are truly special, and grow-ing up within our forests with the understanding that this is ourlivelihood, not anywhere else. The winds of Tawhirimatea [Godof the winds] blow through the ranges and the forest. There is adifference between the winds that blow here compared withwinds from other areas – like in the towns. When the homewinds blow on your return home, it feels like the soft breezewhich awakens the spiritual feeling of old and what it meansto be bound to our land, to our sub-tribe, and to the wider tribeof Ngai T�uhoe. Everything is bound by our forest environment”(Hariata, Haumate, Ruatahuna, 2014).

3.3. Theme 2: Tuawhenua values aligned to the provisioning capacityof forests and rivers

Mahinga kai was identified most frequently in narrative aboutwhat the Tuawhenua forests have provided for the community(Fig.3b). When spoken about by participants it was also most com-monly paired with matauranga (indigenous knowledge), te kiri opapa (natural resources) and nga taonga tuku iho o tuawhakarere(traditional treasures) (Table 2). There was little difference in thescores (%) of the top four values expressed by participants in eachage class, although older interviewees placed more emphasis onnga taonga tuku iho o tuawhakarere than those �60 years (Fig.4b).

‘‘He [my father] taught me all. . . all the art of hunting pigs,shooting deer. More or less teaching me how to bring meathome for the family. There was a saying of his, ‘‘you never wentwandering anywhere without bringing something home for thefamily to eat. Whenever you go to the river, you bring a tuna[freshwater long-fin eel] home or just don’t go down to play.”Stuff like that. I remember a time when he had this beautifulbush horse and the only time he would give it to me was whenI went out hunting. He wouldn’t just give it to me to ride aroundthe house for that day. His horse had to work, had to bring

Fig. 3. Ranking and scores (%) of the top 10 forest values expressed by Tuawhenua participants (n = 43) within their interview narrative in relation to each of the four themes:(a) Importance, (b) Provision, (c) Connection and (d) Aspirations. Refer Section 2.4 for description relating to the calculation of percentage scores and Table 1 for definitions ofacronyms.

Table 2Four most frequent pairings of forest values assigned to narrative of interviews conducted with Tuawhenua participants (n = 43) in relation to each of the four key themes (1)importance, (2) provisioning, (3) connection and (4) aspirations.

Themes Top four pairings of values

1 2 3 4

1) Importance: Why are these lands, forests and rivers so important to the people and yourself? AHI–WKP AHI–WHN AHI–ORA MKA–ORA2) Provision: What have the forest and rivers provided for you and your whanau? MKA–MAT MKA–TKP MAT–NTT MKA–NTT3) Connection: What is the nature of the connections between the integrity of the

forest and health of the community?MAU–MKA MAU–TKP MAU–KAI MAU–MAT

4) Aspirations: What are your aspirations for your lands, forests and rivers? TWA–WHN MAU–OHW AHI–TWA AHI–WHN

P.O’B. Lyver et al. / Ecosystem Services 27 (2017) 92–102 97

something home. It wasn’t just allowed to catch it and take allmy friends for a ride and that. No, no, that horse doesn’t go any-where unless you are going into the bush and carrying meathome” (Spady Kutia, Ruatahuna, 2014).

3.4. Theme 3: Values aligned with connections between the integrity ofthe forest and health of the community

In narrative relating to linkages between the health of the forestand community, mauri was assigned approximately twice as fre-quently as the next most common value (Fig. 3c). Moreover, mauriwas included in each of the four most frequently occurring pairs of

values (Table 2). Of the top four ranked values, mauri and mahingakai were expressed most commonly by older participants, while tekiri o papa (natural resources) and te ohanga whai rawa (economicdevelopment and livelihoods) were more commonly expressed by�60 year olds (Fig.4c).

‘‘The call, the pull of the forest is great for those who grew up inthat environment. I remembered at times when I was heavilyburdened and spiritually down, I would come home to the for-est. If you grew up in the forest you would go into it and sit onyour own and listen to its sounds. The forest used to be a placeof deafening noise [e.g. bird song] and spending time will allowme to come right. After a period I would come out and return towork enlightened and healed. That is the remedy or medicine

Fig. 4. Scores (%) of the top four forest values expressed by Tuawhenua participants in each age class (�60 years; n = 22 participants; black bars; and >60 years; n = 21participants; grey bars) for each of the four key themes: (a) Importance, (b) Provision, (c) Connection and (d) Aspirations. Refer Section 2.4 for description relating to thecalculation of percentage scores and Table 1 for definitions of acronyms.

98 P.O’B. Lyver et al. / Ecosystem Services 27 (2017) 92–102

for those people who grew up in the forest. The forest is a sanc-tuary that I go to seek help for my own well-being and health”(Pou Temara, Ruatahuna, 2014).

3.5. Theme 4: Values reflected in Tuawhenua aspirations for theirforests

Fewer values overall were linked to Tuawhenua aspirations forthe forest compared to the other three themes.Mauri and te ohangawhai rawawere the values most frequently assigned in narrative inrelation to this theme (Fig.3d). Study participants perceived activ-ities such as beekeeping, selective native timber harvesting, andpharmaceuticals as potential provisioning services with economicopportunities for the future. Older participants spoke about te ohanga whai rawamore frequently than the younger group of partic-ipants (Fig.4d).

‘‘I think if we manage it [the forest] properly, it will also pro-vide employment for our people. And I’ve got no doubt aboutit in my mind if we all worked together as a whole of TeUrewera, that we can do all our pest control manually onthe ground, rather than having to use 1080 [sodium monoflu-oroacetate, a commonly used vertebrate toxin]. I’m certainour forest would be a lot healthier . . .. . .. An activity like thiswould go some way towards mending the health of our com-munity and its making people do some exercise instead ofsitting in the house all day” (Tahae Doherty, Ruatahuna,2014).

‘‘I’m going back in time to when our forest was given to Fletch-er’s [Fletcher Challenge Ltd., a forestry company] to mill ourtrees. This gave our relatives from home employment to helpfeed their families but the forest started to diminish becauseof the logging processes that took away our Maori trees likethe mata�ı [Prumnopitys taxifolia], totara [Podocarpus totara],rimu [Dacrydium cupressinum] and kahikatea [Dacrycarpusdacrydioides]. I think our parents agreed to the Pakeha [non-Maori] having control over the forest and felling the trees inthe 1970s as a way to help feed their local families, to help ben-efit the families, and get employment for their children, in-lawsand grandchildren so they wouldn’t have to move out of Ruatahuna. There were many families living here in that era. Theyworked together and on weekends they would engage in sportscompetitions” (Te Tuhi Taoho, Ruatahuna, 2014).

4. Discussion

4.1. Impacts, dependencies, and trade-offs of key values and ecosystemservices

Mauri and mahinga kai were the forest values most frequentlyassigned to interviews with Tuawhenua elders and forest users(Fig. 2). Tuawhenua participants emphasized that the diminish-ment of mauri within their forests has affected their ability to pro-vide traditional forest foods and materials. Mauri is a fundamental

P.O’B. Lyver et al. / Ecosystem Services 27 (2017) 92–102 99

environmental value and construct for Maori society (Harmsworthand Awatere, 2013) that aligns across the four primary ES cate-gories (MEA, 2005; Greenhalgh and Hart, 2015). The health ofmauri refers to whether the appropriate biophysical and spiritualelements of the ecosystem are present and functioning in a waythat best nurtures and supports life (Marsden, 1988). If the mauriof an ecosystem is healthy and vibrant there is a greater likelihoodthat ES central to the local community will be supported. Factorsaffecting mauri therefore have the ability to disrupt or strengthensocio-ecological resilience of Maori communities and their envi-ronments. In this way mauri has been used as the core conceptand indicator within cultural impact assessment and monitoringframeworks in New Zealand (e.g., Tipa and Nelson, 2008; Lyveret al., 2016b) and to gauge the potential impact of industrial andeconomic development on a community’s core suite of values(Morgan 2006, 2007; Scheele et al., 2016).

Trade was an important cultural activity for Maori society thatlinked tribes across New Zealand (King, 2003; Consedine, 2007).More contemporary forms of primary industries (e.g., farming) fol-lowed the arrival of Europeans and persist today, assisted by thesettlement of historic land claims (Easton, 2010). However, balanc-ing the benefits and costs of economic development on ES (e.g.,Fig. 4d), in particular CES, have challenged Maori communitiesand their relationships with the environment as their leaders haveendeavoured to improve the tribe’s economic future and standardof living for their people (Jolly and Solomon, 2014). Milling of largenative conifers (e.g. mata�ı, rimu, toromiro, Prumnopitys ferruginea;totara) from Tuawhenua forests between 1950 and 1975 alteredforest structure and resulted in a simpler forest dominated by treeferns and the shade-tolerant, vigorously sprouting broadleaf tree,tawa. The benefits of the forest industry for Tuawhenua were localemployment and income that supported people living and workingin Ruatahuna while allowing them greater opportunity to partici-pate in community life. The maintenance of ahikaroa (keepingthe home fires burning) was considered by Tuawhenua to be a cru-cial part of defining their identity because it instilled an inheritedright to contribute to and make decisions about the land and envi-ronment. Therefore, the benefits of working and living locally inthe forest industry were weighed heavily against maintaining theintegrity and services of the forest environment. The removal ofthe giant conifers was considered to have diminished the mauriof the forest significantly as it changed the character of the forestand reduced it’s capacity to provide the full range of values andservices to the community (e.g., collection of food and plant prod-ucts, flood regulation, primary production, inspiration, and her-itage values). Indigenous peoples often live in isolated regionswhere local industries can offer employment and opportunitiesfor individuals to maintain their connection with their tribal area(e.g., The National Indigenous Forest Strategy – AustralianGovernment, 2005). However, the impact of these industries canoften require a trade-offs against other core values and ES (e.g., lossof ecosystem integrity, access to or availability of traditional foodor resources, or methods to acquire and transfer traditional knowl-edge). The conundrum of trading-off between ES is a global issueand one commonly confronted by indigenous peoples as industriesseek to intensify extraction and change landscape use or extractminerals, ores, metals and/or precious stones (Cleghorn, 1999;Jolly, 2014; Parlee, 2015). Added to this, the undertaking of imme-diate tangible benefits for communities (e.g. employment) associ-ated with these trade-offs is also often fraught or unrealised(O’Faircheallaigh, 2013).

While it has been possible for indigenous peoples around theworld to partially buffer themselves against the degradation ofsome provisioning and regulating services (e.g. greater relianceon store-bought foods to replace traditional foods), the loss ofCES benefits (e.g. opportunities to develop cultural connection,

identity and heritage; maintain and transfer traditional knowl-edge) linked to these other services has been more difficult to mit-igate and had much greater impact (also see Plieninger et al., 2013;Feary and Donaldson, 2015; Pandey et al., 2016). The introductionof exotic plant and animals into New Zealand’s forest and freshwa-ter habitats initially by Maori and then more extensively by Euro-peans resulted in wide-spread extinctions and declines in nativebiodiversity (Worthy and Holdaway, 2002; Kelly and Sullivan,2010). Loss of these native species, combined with the resultingprotective conservation laws enforced by a colonial European gov-ernment, has meant that the foods available to and harvested byMaori throughout New Zealand have changed. Tuawhenua nowfrequently venture into the forest to camp, hunt for exotic speciessuch as red deer and feral pigs for meat, trap possums for fur, orfish for trout (Salmoniid spp.) as alternate food sources to harvest-ing now protected native birds (e.g. kerer�u, koko, Prosthemaderanovaeseelandiae; or kaka, Nestor meridionalis) and native freshwa-ter fish (raumahehe, Galaxias spp.). Although exotic species likeferal pig and deer are valued and provide a provisioning servicefor many Maori communities, they generally do not have culturalheritage values such as whakapapa, wairua, te reo (language) andt�uakiritanga-a-iwi (cultural identity) associated with them, northe korero tawhito (history of land and people including knowledgeof sacred harvest sites) and customary protocols reserved fornative taonga (treasured species) like the kerer�u, and thereforeare not wholly substitutable. Relatively few traditional harvestsof native fauna by Maori for food and trade remain compared withthe pre-European settlement period (see McKechnie et al., 2010;Jellyman, 2012; Jones et al., 2015). Maori now place much greaterreliance on store-bought foods.

4.2. The role of provisioning services in maintaining and growingcultural services

Provisioning service opportunities support not only food secu-rity but also the integrity of indigenous cultures globally(Kuhnlein et al., 2013). The range of values identified in this study(e.g. Fig. 3b) contributes extensively to the quality of life for indi-viduals in often isolated communities. Provisioning and sharingof food was an important practice that demonstratedmanaakitanga(the practice of caring for people) and facilitated individual andcommunity well-being. The practice also contributed to the cus-tom of matemateone (a commitment to community caring andtogetherness). The harvesting of forest foods and resources forother families was often the principal reason for Tuawhenua com-munity members being in the forest (Fig. 3b and c). These activitieswere vital mechanisms for the practice and reinforcement of cus-tomary lore and processes, the transfer of knowledge, monitoringforest health and maintaining community interaction and resili-ence (Lyver et al., 2016b). Despite the level of reliance on the forestdeclining over the past 30–40 years, it still remains an importantreservoir of food and other culturally important materials (e.g.,medicinal plants) for the Tuawhenua community.

Loss of these opportunities and practices, especially around cul-tural keystone species (Garibaldi and Turner, 2004), has the poten-tial to damage cultural integrity of the community irreparably.Large-scale declines in kerer�u abundance in Te Urewera haveresulted in an attrition of Tuawhenua cultural expressions associ-ated with this species over the last 75 years (Timoti et al. unpubl.data). The over-hunting of bison (Bison bison) from grasslands inthe United States during the 1800s undermined not only the foodsecurity of many Amerindian populations, but also the knowledgeand many of the cultural expressions and processes linked to thatspecies (Butler and Oluoch-Kosura, 2006). More recently, unprece-dented declines in the George River barren-ground caribou (Rangi-fer tarandus groenlandicus) herd from 800,000 animals in the 1990s

100 P.O’B. Lyver et al. / Ecosystem Services 27 (2017) 92–102

to approximately 9,000 in 2016 in Labrador and Quebec, Canada(Foreign Affairs Publisher, 2017) has threatened not only foodsecurity of local Inuit and Innu but also the integrity and mainte-nance of cultural identity, practices, knowledge and customs linkedto the caribou (Kendrick, 2013). The loss of fishing opportunitiesfor the Kyuquot-Checleset First Nations community, in BritishColumbia, Canada has been attributed to loss of knowledge andidentity in the community’s youth (Chan et al., 2012a). Theseexamples demonstrate that while provisioning services contributesurvival of indigenous communities, the cultural services thatresult from these activities are vitally significant as they defineand constitute the life force of the culture. Without these provi-sioning service opportunities, indigenous peoples risk losing theiridentity, knowledge systems, diversity of practices and transfor-mative experiences to grow their cultures (Chan et al., 2012a;Lyver and Tylianakis 2017). While challenges to understand andquantify the spectrum and depth of these cultural services withinindigenous societies exist (Venn and Quiggin, 2007), they need tobe recognised as a critical part of any ES assessment that engageswith indigenous communities.

4.3. A diversity of values strengthens ecosystem service frameworks

The dimensions that characterise indigenous peoples’ world-views, knowledge, environmental citizenship, and reasons foraction are often subjugated or over-looked in ES assessments andenvironmental planning frameworks of western industrializedsocieties (Roberts, 2010; Chan et al., 2012a; Walsh et al., 2013).Failure to capture the spectrum of features that shape people’s per-ceptions of value holds implications for the legitimacy and effec-tiveness of decisions taken on the basis of any valuation,irrespective of how it is formed (O’Neill and Spash, 2000). How-ever, it is necessary to reflect upon which and whose values aretaken into account (Hilier, 1999). The power asymmetries existingwith environmental management, and even co-managementarrangements, can restrict the goal of building a common senseof purpose (Armitage et al., 2008). The concept of spirituality com-monly forms the basis of indigenous peoples’ connection to theland (e.g., Grieves, 2009; Kingsley et al., 2013), however, the roleit plays often remains unclear, isolated and under-valued in envi-ronmental planning and management (Houde, 2007). It is oftenthe case that values like whakapapa or wairua are treated as ‘cul-tural constructions’, which imply that they are symbolic, ratherthan real (Ingold, 2000). While ES frameworks can facilitate theinclusion of intangible or non-material benefits, the articulationof CESs is often challenging and therefore not easilyaccommodated.

The diversity of values associated with the different actors andstakeholders affected by and contributing to environmental man-agement can be often great. National-level account of indigenouspeoples’ values and perspectives requires policy- and decision-makers to rise to the challenge of plurality. Our study emphasizesthe range and diversity of values of one group of Maori from onetribe. Striving to better understand indigenous peoples’ values, aswell as the worldviews in which they are contained, is a usefulexercise in itself (Campbell and Smith, 2006). Engagement ofindigenous peoples’ worldviews and values however requiresunique ways of perceiving, thinking, and valuing ecosystems andthe environment (Woolley and McGinnis, 2000; Yli-Pelkonen andNiemelä, 2005; Berkes, 2012). Effective accommodation of indige-nous peoples’ worldviews will raise the prominence of the intangi-ble components, which are much more prominent withinindigenous peoples’ cultures than western industrialized societies(Groenfeldt, 2003). Challenges regarding non-market valuation ofindigenous cultural heritage have been outlined in a number of for-ums (see Adamowicz et al., 1998; Venn and Quiggin, 2007). Most

significantly, indigenous peoples hold places, objects, resources,and ideologies as invaluable and non-negotiable. This means thatsubstitutability of goods and services, which are essential for mostnon-market valuation, may not be feasible or valid. Current inter-cultural limitations within current ES assessment processes riskindigenous peoples’ values and perspectives being over-looked orbecoming institutionalized within current frameworks. Therefore,approaches that facilitate the ‘weaving’ of indigenous peoples’worldviews and values into ES frameworks and assessments, aswell as economic valuations, are needed (see Tengö et al., 2014,2017). Progress towards these outcomes will significantly con-tribute to the realisation of indigenous peoples’ rights, as well asconcepts of sustainability and socio-ecological resilience withinthe ES framework.

5. Conclusion

Interest in environmental values has greatly increased in recentdecades as increasing global degradation and scarcity of resourcesraise issues such as around the allocation of resources (e.g.,Costanza et al., 1997; Patterson and Cole, 1999; TEEB, 2010;Chick and Laurence, 2016). Our study focused on the diversity ofvalues held by one group within an indigenous culture to assesshow well an ES framework was able to reflect these values. If anES framework is able to effectively recognise and accommodateindigenous peoples’ values then it could hold the promise of pro-viding a common language and framework across cultures, thusenabling a consistent articulation of indigenous values for use indecision making. A fundamental concept that emerged from theMEA (2005) process was the linking environmental condition withhuman wellbeing. This concept provides common ground toengage indigenous peoples however the criteria for linkagesbetween cultural epistemologies need further exploration.

Many key values for indigenous peoples potentially fall withinthe CES category. CES have proved difficult for ES assessmentsdue to the cultural challenges to valuing them either qualitativelyor quantitatively. Common valuation approaches, such as eco-nomic valuation methods, are unlikely to derive the ‘true’ valueof services, for instance, related to the provisioning of traditionalfoods given that the available alternative food sources are not fullysubstitutable and fail to capture the cultural values associated withthe provisioning of traditional foods. Also, critical valuation ques-tions like: (i) what an indigenous community would pay to keeptheir access to native flora and fauna; or (ii) what a communitywould accept in terms of compensation for the loss of that floraand fauna become quickly fraught under an indigenous peoples’worldview of kinship with their natural world. Indigenous peoples’relationships with their environment are critical to maintainingtheir cultural identity integrity and wellbeing. Therefore the asso-ciated values are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to appropri-ately quantify or substitute. It is also unlikely that a valuation ofthe outcome will ever be the same for both questions. Regardlessof the challenges with articulating the cultural services derivedfrom indigenous values, it is important to find approaches, suchas ES frameworks, to effectively recognise, articulate and integratethese values into decision-making processes and give a ‘voice’ tooften disempowered people.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Tuawhenua elders and community that partici-pated and contributed to this study and the directorship of theT�uhoe Tuawhenua Trust. Tangiora Tawhara and KirituiaTumarae-Teka assisted with the collection, translation and tran-scription of interviews. Our manuscript benefitted from the guid-

P.O’B. Lyver et al. / Ecosystem Services 27 (2017) 92–102 101

ance of Pou Temara, Wharehuia Milroy and Tahae Doherty. AnneSutherland constructed our location map. The study was fundedby NZ MBIE Grants (C09X0308; C09X1307) and Crown ResearchInstitute ‘Maori and Biodiversity’ Core funding. Thanks to the threeanonymous referees for their reviews and improvements to thisarticle.

References

Adamowicz, W., Beckley, T., Macdonald, D., Hatton, D., Just, L., Luckert, M., Murray,E., Phillips, W., 1998. In search of forest values of indigenous peoples: arenonmarket valuation techniques applicable? Soc. Nat. Res. 11, 51–66.

Armitage, D., Marschke, M., Plummer, R., 2008. Adaptive co-management and theparadox of learning. Glob. Environ. Change 18, 86–98.

Australian Government, 2005. The National Indigenous Forestry Strategy.Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra, Australia, p. 29.

Berkes, F., 2012. Sacred Ecology. Routledge, New York and London, p. 392.Butler, C.D., Oluoch-Kosura, W., 2006. Linking future ecosystem services and future

human well-being. Ecol. Soc., 11(1), 30. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art30/.

Campbell, L.M., Smith, C., 2006. What makes them pay? Values of volunteer touristsworking for sea turtle conservation. Environ. Manag. 38, 84–98.

Carswell, F.E., Richardson, S.J., Doherty, J.E., Allen, R.B., Wiser, S.K., 2007. Where doconifers regenerate after selective harvest? A case study from a New Zealandconifer-angiosperm forest. Forest Ecol. Manag. 253, 138–147.

Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012a. Rethinking ecosystem services tobetter address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18.

Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X.,Woodside, U., 2012b. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? Aframework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62 (8), 744–756.

Chick, A., Laurence, R., 2016. Mapping the services and benefits of indigenousbiodiversity and historic heritage in New Zealand. An exploration of spatialdatasets. Publishing Team, Department of Conservation, Wellington, NewZealand, p. 135p.

Cleghorn, C., 1999. Aboriginal Peoples and Mining in Canada: Six Case Studies/Prepared for Mining Watch Canada. http://miningwatch.ca/blog/1999/9/1/aboriginal-peoples-and-mining-canada-six-case-studies (accessed 14.04.2017).

Consedine, B., 2007. Historical Influences: Maori and the Economy. Te Puni Kokiri,Wellington, NZ, p. 12.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., van den Belt,M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.Nature 387 (6630), 253–260.

Daniel, T.C., Muhar, S., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., von der Dunk,A., 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 (23), 8812–8819.

Easton, B., 2010. ’Economic history – Phases of economic development’, Te Ara – theEncyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/artwork/24312/maori-trading (accessed 16.02.17).

Edwards, D., Collins, T., Goto, R., 2016. Does the Conservation Status of a CaledonianForest Also indicate Cultural Ecosystem Value. Springer InternationalPublishing, UK: Environmental History 5.

Ens, E.J., Pert, P., Clarke, P.A., Budden, M., Clubb, L., Doran, B., Wason, S., 2015.Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and management:review and insight from Australia. Biol. Conserv. 181, 133–149.

Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., Khamis, M., 2012. Communitystakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments – Mapping indicators forlandscape services. Ecol. Indic. 18, 421–433.

Feary, S., Donaldson, S., 2015. Sea countries of New South Wales: a Benefits andThreats Analysis of Aboriginal people’s Connections with the Marine Estate.Report to NSW Marine Estate Management Authority. NSW Department ofPrimary Industries, NSW Govenrment, Australia, p. 160.

Foreign Affairs Publisher, 2017. Minister Trimper Advises that the George RiverCaribou Herd is Critically Vulnerable During Winter Months. http://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2017/02/03/minister-trimper-advises-that-the-george-river-caribou-herd-is-critically-vulnerable-during-winter-months/ (accessed 15.02.17).

Garibaldi, A., Turner, N., 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for ecologicalconservation and restoration. Ecol. Soc. 9(3): 1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1.

Gould, R.K., Ardoin, N.M., Woodside, U., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Daily, G.C.,Stockholms, U., 2014. The forest has a story: cultural ecosystem services inKona, Hawai’i. Ecol. Soc. 19 (3), 55.

Gould, R.K., Klain, S.C., Ardoin, N.M., Satterfield, T., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Chan,K.M., 2015. A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a culturalecosystem services frame: analyzing Cultural Ecosystem Services. Conserv. Biol.29 (2), 575–586.

Graham, J., Amos, B., Plumptre, T., 2003. Governance principles for protected areasin the 21st century. Institute on Governance, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Greenhalgh, S., Hart, G., 2015. Mainstreaming ecosystem services into policy anddecision-making: lessons from New Zealand’s journey. Int. J. Biod. Sci. Eco. Serv.Manag. 11 (3), 205–215.

Grieves, V., 2009. Aboriginal spirituality: Aboriginal philosophy the basis ofaboriginal social and emotional wellbeing. Discussion Paper No. 9,Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health, Darwin, Australia, pp. 78.

Groenfeldt, D., 2003. The future of indigenous values: cultural realism in the face ofeconomic development. Futures 35, 917–929.

Harmsworth, G.R., Awatere, S., 2013. Indigenous Maori knowledge and perspectivesof ecosystems. In: Dymond, J. (Ed.), Ecosystem Services in New Zealand:Conditions and Trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Landcare Research, PalmerstonNorth, New Zealand, pp. 274–286.

Hilier, J., 1999. What values? Whose values? Philos. Geogr. 2, 179–199.Hill, R., Cullen-Unsworth, L.C., Talbot, L.D., McIntyre-Tamwoy, S., 2011. Empowering

indigenous peoples’ biocultural diversity through world heritage culturallandscapes: a case study from the Australian tropical forests. Int. J. Herit.Stud. 17, 571–590.

Houde, N., 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges andopportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecol. Soc. 12(2):34.URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34/.

Ingold, T., 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling,and Skill. Routledge, New York, NY.

Jellyman, D., 2012. The status of longfin eels in New Zealand - an overview of stocksand harvest. Prepared for Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.NIWAClient Report No: CHC2012-006 – revisedWellingtonNewZealand. pp. 78.

Jolly, D., 2014. Final draft cultural impact assessmeny – development of BalmoralNgai Tahu Property. Stage 1: Integrated water solution for the Hurunuicatchment. Witaskewin, Lincoln, New Zealand. pp. 18.

Jolly, D., Solomon, R., 2014. Giving effect to manawhenua values and aspirations inthe development of Balmoral. Balmoral Stage 2 Report. Witaskewin, Lincoln,New Zealand. pp. 17.

Jones, C.J., Lyver, P.O’B., Davis, J., Hughes, B., Anderson, A., Hohapata-Oke, J., 2015.reinstatement of customary seabird harvests after a 50-year moratorium. J.Wild. Manage. Wild. Mono. 79 (1), 31–38.

Kelly, D., Sullivan, J.J., 2010. Life histories, dispersal, invasions, and global change:progress and prospects in New Zealand ecology, 1989–2029. N. Z. J. Ecol. 34,207–217.

Kendall, M., 1938. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30, 81–91.Kendrick, A., 2013. Canadian Inuit sustainable use and management of Arctic

species. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 70 (3), 414–428.King, M., 2003. The Penguin History of New Zealand. Penguin Books Ltd, Auckland,

New Zealand, p. 704.Kingsley, J., Townsend, M., Henderson-Wilson, C., Bolam, B., 2013. Developing an

exploratory framework linking Australian aboriginal peoples’ connection tocountry and concepts ofwellbeing. Inter. J. Environ. Res. Pub.Health 10, 678–698.

Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B., Spigelski, D., Burlingame, B. (Eds), 2013. Indigenouspeoples’ food systems and well-being interventions & policies for healthycommunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Centrefor Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment, Rome, Italy. pp. 437.

Lyver, P.O’B., Akins, A., Phipps, H., Kahui, V., Towns, D.R., Moller, H., 2016a. Keybiocultural values to guide restoration action and planning in New Zealand.Restor. Ecol. 24 (3), 314–323.

Lyver, P.O’B., Timoti, P., Jones, C.J., Richardson, S.J., Tahi, B.L., Greenhalgh, S., 2016b.An indigenous community-based monitoring system for assessing forest healthin New Zealand. Bio. Conserv.

Lyver, P.O’B., Tylianakis, J.M., ver and Tylianakis 2017. Indigenous peoples:conservation paradox. Science 357, 141–142.

Marsden, M., 1988. The natural world and natural resources. Maori value systemsand perspectives. Resource Management Law Reform Working Paper 29. Part A.Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.

McKechnie, S., Fletcher, D., Newman, J., Scott, D., Bragg, C., Moller, H., 2010.Modeling harvest intensity of sooty shearwater chicks by Rakiura Maori in NewZealand. J. Wildlife Manage. 74, 828–842.

McMichael, T., Scholes, B., Hefny, M., Pereira, E., Palm, C., Foale, S., 2005. Linkingecosystem services and human well-being in sub-global assessments. In:Capistrano, D., Samper, C. (Eds.), Sub-global Assessment of the MilleniumEcosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

MEA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C..

Morgan, T.K.K.B., 2006. Decision-support tools and the indigenous paradigm. Eng.Sustainable 159, 169–177.

Morgan, T.K.K.B., 2007. Waiora and cultural identity: water quality assessmentusing the mauri model. alternative. Int. J. Indigen. Scholar. 3 (1), 42–67.

Morunga, K., Tahi, B., 2013. Industry and People: Development in the Tuawhenua.T�uhoe Tuawhenua Trust, Ruatahuna, New Zealand.

New Zealand Government, 2014. Te Urewera Act. Public Act 2014, No. 51, NewZealand Government, Wellington, New Zealand. pp. 144.

O’Faircheallaigh, C., 2013. Extractive industries and Indigenous peoples: a changingdynamic? J. Rural Stud. 30, 2–30.

O’Neill, J.F., Spash, C.L., 2000. Conceptions of value in environmental decision-making. Environ. Val. 9, 521–536.

Olson, J.M., Zanna, M.P., 1993. Attitudes and attitude change. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 44,117–154.

Pandey, A., Kotru, R., Pradhan, N., 2016. A Framework for the assessment of culturalecosystem services of sacred natural sites in the Hindu Kush Himalayas. Basedon fieldwork in the Kailash sacred landscape regions of India and Nepal. ICIMODWorking Paper 2016/8, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal.

102 P.O’B. Lyver et al. / Ecosystem Services 27 (2017) 92–102

Parlee, B., 2015. Avoiding the resource curse: indigenous communities and canada’soil sands. World Dev. 74, 425–436.

Patterson, M., Cole, A., 1999. Assessing the value of New Zealand’s biodiversity.School of Resource & Environmental Planning Occasional Paper Number 1.Palmerston North, Massey University.

Pert, P.L., Hill, R., Maclean, K., Dale, A., Rist, P., Schmider, J., Tawake, L., 2015a.Mapping cultural ecosystem services with rainforest aboriginal peoples:Integrating biocultural diversity, governance and social variation. Eco. Serv.13, 41–56.

Pert, P.L., Ens, E.J., Locke, J., Clarke, P.A., Packer, J.M., Turpin, G., 2015b. An onlinespatial database of Australian Indigenous biocultural knowledge forcontemporary natural and cultural resource management. Sci. Total Environ.534, 110–121.

Plieninger, T., Oteros Rozas, E., Dijks, S., Bieling, C., 2013. Assessing, mapping andquantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Pol. 33,118–129.

Rickenbach, O., Reyes-Gracía, V., Moser, G., García, C., 2017. What explains wildlifevalue orientations? A study among Central African forest dwellers. Human Ecol.45, 293–306.

Roberts, M., 2010. Mind maps of Maori. GeoJournal 77 (6), 1–11.Rokeach, M., 1973. The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New York.Scheele, S., Carswell, F., Harmsworth, G., Lyver, P.O’B., Awatere, S., Robb, M., Taura,

Y., Wilson, S. 2016. Reporting environmental impacts on te ao Maori: a strategicscoping document. Landcare Research Contract Report LC2600, Lincoln, NZ.pp. 41.

TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming theEconomics of Nature: a Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions andRecommendations of TEEB. Progress Press, Malta. http://www.teebweb.org/publication/mainstreamingthe-economics-of-nature-a-synthesis-of-the-approach-conclusions-and-recommendations-of-teeb/.

Tengö, M., Brondizio, E.S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M., 2014.Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance:the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591.

Tengö, Maria., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C.M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F.,Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD andbeyond - lessons learned for sustainability. Cur. Opin. Environ. Sustainable 26,17–25.

Timmer, S.G., Kahle, L., 1983. Birthright demographic correlates of values. In: Kahle,L. (Ed.), Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation in America. Praeger, NewYork, USA.

Tipa, G., Nelson, K., 2008. Introducing cultural opportunities: a framework forincorporating cultural perspectives in contemporary resource management. J.Environ. Policy Plan. 10, 313–337.

Venn, T.J., Quiggin, J., 2007. Accommodating indigenous cultural heritage values inresource assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray-Darling Basin,Australia. Ecol. Econ. 61, 334–344.

Walker, R., 2004. Ka whawhai tonu matou: Struggle without end. Penguin,Auckland, NZ.

Walsh, F.J., Dobson, P.V., Douglas, J.C., 2013. Anpernirrentye: a framework forenhanced application of indigenous ecological knowledge in natural resourcemanagement. Ecol. Soc. 18 (3), 18.

Woolley, J.T., McGinnis, M.V., 2000. The conflicting discourses of restoration. Soc.Nat. Res. 13, 339–357.

Worthy, T.H., Holdaway, R.N., 2002. The Lost World of the MOA: Prehistoric Life ofNew Zealand. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, USA, p.718.

Yli-Pelkonen, V., Niemelä, J., 2005. Linking ecological and social systems in cities:urban planning in Finland as a case. Biod. Conserv. 14, 1947–1967.