IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v268y2018i3p984-995.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster

Author

Listed:
  • Morgan, Te Kipa Kepa Brian
  • Fa`aui, Tumanako Ngawhika

Abstract

Just after midnight on October 5, 2011, the MV Rena ran aground on Otāiti, a reef situated 27 kilometers off the coast of New Zealand. The clean-up process has now been underway for more than four years, and is acknowledged as the second most expensive wreck recovery in the world, at more than half a billion US dollars. In October 2015, a resource consent hearing was concluded, and this sought approval to abandon the remaining sections of the Rena wreck on Otāiti. Māori submissions to the hearing process were divided between opposition to the applicant's request and support from others, including the Te Arawa ki Tai tribal grouping. Te Arawa ki Tai have adapted the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework to provide a better understanding of the recovery process, and the holistic understanding it provides is of relevance to other international contexts. This paper shares how the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework, in conjunction with an indigenous based methodology, empowered Te Arawa ki Tai in the recovery process and facilitated an enhanced Te Arawa ki Tai understanding. Since the grounding, Te Arawa ki Tai have co-created indicator sets that are inclusive of all of the relevant scientific and indigenous knowledge available. The impact upon mauri (life force or life supporting capacity) since the MV Rena grounding has been evaluated using the same indicator sets, with quarterly assessments. Reflections on how the concerns of the disadvantaged and marginalized Māori communities have been addressed are included.

Suggested Citation

  • Morgan, Te Kipa Kepa Brian & Fa`aui, Tumanako Ngawhika, 2018. "Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 984-995.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:268:y:2018:i:3:p:984-995
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221717304587
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J L Foote & J E Gregor & M C Hepi & V E Baker & D J Houston & G Midgley, 2007. "Systemic problem structuring applied to community involvement in water conservation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 645-654, May.
    2. Cronin, Karen & Midgley, Gerald & Jackson, Laurie Skuba, 2014. "Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 145-158.
    3. Midgley, Gerald & Johnson, Michael P. & Chichirau, George, 2018. "What is Community Operational Research?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 771-783.
    4. Cochran, P.A.L. & Marshall, C.A. & Garcia-Downing, C. & Kendall, E. & Cook, D. & McCubbin, L. & Gover, R.M.S., 2008. "Indigenous ways of knowing: Implications for participatory research and community," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(1), pages 22-27.
    5. C. West Churchman, 1970. "Operations Research as a Profession," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 37-53, October.
    6. Ulrich, Werner, 1987. "Critical heuristics of social systems design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 276-283, September.
    7. Reed, Mark S. & Fraser, Evan D.G. & Dougill, Andrew J., 2006. "An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 406-418, October.
    8. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Murphy, Matthew & Danis, Wade M. & Mack, Johnny & Sayers, (Kekinusuqs) Judith, 2020. "From principles to action: Community-based entrepreneurship in the Toquaht Nation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(6).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sydelko, Pamela & Midgley, Gerald & Espinosa, Angela, 2021. "Designing interagency responses to wicked problems: Creating a common, cross-agency understanding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 250-263.
    2. Gerald Midgley & Erik Lindhult, 2021. "A systems perspective on systemic innovation," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 635-670, October.
    3. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Midgley, Gerald & Hodgson, Anthony M., 2020. "Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 321-340.
    4. Helfgott, Ariella & Midgley, Gerald & Chaudhury, Abrar & Vervoort, Joost & Sova, Chase & Ryan, Alex, 2023. "Multi-level participation in integrative, systemic planning: The case of climate adaptation in Ghana," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(3), pages 1201-1217.
    5. Ufua, Daniel E. & Papadopoulos, Thanos & Midgley, Gerald, 2018. "Systemic Lean Intervention: Enhancing Lean with Community Operational Research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1134-1148.
    6. Weaver, Miles W & Crossan, Kenny & Tan, Hock B & Paxton, Steven E, 2018. "A systems approach to understanding the perspectives in the changing landscape of responsible business in Scotland," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1149-1167.
    7. Johnson, Michael P. & Midgley, Gerald & Chichirau, George, 2018. "Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1178-1191.
    8. Herron, Rebecca & Mendiwelso-Bendek, Zoraida, 2018. "Supporting self-organised community research through informal learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 825-835.
    9. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    10. Konsti-Laakso, Suvi & Rantala, Tero, 2018. "Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1040-1049.
    11. Pinzon-Salcedo, Luis Arturo & Torres-Cuello, Maria Alejandra, 2018. "Community Operational Research: Developing a systemic peace education programme involving urban and rural communities in Colombia," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 946-959.
    12. Graeme Nicholas, 2022. "Getting to practical: Complementarity between critical systems thinking and phronetic social science," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 913-922, September.
    13. Pluchinotta, Irene & Salvia, Giuseppe & Zimmermann, Nici, 2022. "The importance of eliciting stakeholders’ system boundary perceptions for problem structuring and decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 280-293.
    14. Cabrera, Derek & Cabrera, Laura & Powers, Erin & Solin, Jeremy & Kushner, Jennifer, 2018. "Applying systems thinking models of organizational design and change in community operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 932-945.
    15. Tanzi Smith, 2011. "Using critical systems thinking to foster an integrated approach to sustainability: a proposal for development practitioners," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Siavash Fallah-Alipour & Hossein Mehrabi Boshrabadi & Mohammad Reza Zare Mehrjerdi & Dariush Hayati, 2018. "A Framework for Empirical Assessment of Agricultural Sustainability: The Case of Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-26, December.
    17. Ksenia Ivanova & Sondoss Elsawah, 2022. "Iterative Refinement of Multi-Method OR Workshop Designs through Boundary Critique: An Analytical Framework and Case Studies in Technology Utilisation," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 345-374, June.
    18. Walsh, Mike & Kittler, Markus G. & Mahal, Dawn, 2018. "Towards a new paradigm of healthcare: Addressing challenges to professional identities through Community Operational Research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1125-1133.
    19. Çağlar Kıvanç Kaymaz & Salih Birinci & Yusuf Kızılkan, 2022. "Sustainable development goals assessment of Erzurum province with SWOT-AHP analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 2986-3012, March.
    20. Tavella, Elena, 2016. "How to make Participatory Technology Assessment in agriculture more “participatory”: The case of genetically modified plants," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 119-126.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:268:y:2018:i:3:p:984-995. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.