He kāinga pai rawa: Te Kete Mātauranga mō te hanga whare tino pai rawa: a knowledge basket to support building affordable and safe housing for kaumātua

Abstract

Tuhinga whakarāpopoto (Abstract)

Poor, unaffordable and overcrowded housing among Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand is one of the converging societal trends to impact significantly on older Māori ageing in place and in age-friendly environments. Some kaupapa Māori (Māori approach) organisations have sought to develop kaumātua (elders) villages to address these challenges. From the study of one such village, a toolkit of successful practices was developed. The purpose of this article is to describe the research design and methods for a project that will use this toolkit to develop community determined villages in three additional communities. The research approach involves process evaluation using photovoice, interviews, wānanga (consultation meetings) seminars and meeting’s notes, along with summative evaluation using surveys. The research process is grounded in a culture-centred and co-design approach with a vision underpinned by tikanga Māori (Māori custom) and te ao Māori (Māori world) that will be shared with others through a revised toolkit.

Keywords

community housing culture-centred kaumātua villages Māori research strategy research processes and evaluation toolkit

Māku anō e hanga tōku nei whare

Ko tōna tāhuhu, he hīnau

Ko ōna pou he māhoe, he patetē

—Nā Kīngi Tāwhiao (1860–1894)

I shall build my own house,

The ridge-pole will be of hīnau and the supporting posts of māhoe and patetē.

—Mahuta (1993)

Whakatuwheratanga (Introduction)

E te tī, e te tā tēnā rā koutou katoa e aronui mai nei ki ēnei mahi nanao, ko te tūmanako anō ia ka whai hua ā koutou pānui i ēnei kohikohinga kōrero e hāngai pū ana ki ō tātou mātāpuputu. Hei whakatūwhera i ngā kōrero kua tīkina atu te tongikura a Kīngi Tāhwiao o runga rā hei tūāpapa, hei ārahi i ā mātou mahi hoki.

Greetings and salutations to those of you who have an interest in this particular research, the hope is that you will find some benefit from reading this article which has a focus on housing our kaumātua. To open up this article, we have chosen the prophetic saying of Kīngi Tāwhiao to form the foundation of this article and to help guide us throughout our research.

This article opens with the tongikura (prophetic saying) of Kīngi Tāwhiao, te kīngi Māori tuarua (the second Māori king) encouraging his people to be self-determining, to have a strong physical, mental, emotional, political, social cultural identity and to be innovative and not accept the norm despite the events and environment of that time. Kingi Tawhiao said, “Maku anō e hanga tōku nei whare” (I myself shall build my house). Fashioned from trees not known for their building potential, the ridge-pole would be of hīnau (Elaeocarpus dentatus) and the supporting posts of māhoe (Melicytus ramiflorus) and patatē (Schefflera digitata), three types of trees not typically known for building houses. Kingi Tawhiao called his people to be nurtured by the rengarenga (rock lily) and strengthened on the kawariki (Coprosma grandifolia) berries to be selfless, be resilient and persevere no matter the obstacles. Therefore, we use this guiding tongikura to be our philosophical grounding to ensure we as researchers understand and promote the health and wellbeing of the iwi (people) at all times, to remind us to be respectful of our processes, of our relationships with the iwi, and to guide us with our research as our collaborative approach strives for optimal benefits for our communities and the iwi.

The whakapapa (origins) of this research project stems from a long-standing collaborative relationship with the Rauawaawa Kaumātua Charitable Trust (RKCT), Te Rūnanga o Kirikiriroa (TRoK) and the University of Waikato. The former two are kaupapa Māori (Māori approach, ideology, philosophy) community organisations. RKCT provides wrap around services for kaumātua (elders) and TRoK provides wrap around and housing services for urban Maori, including kaumātua. The RKCT wrap around services also include health, social, educational, cultural, recreational, housing and financial services to kaumātua over 55 years old. The TRoK mission is to increase holistic wellbeing, which is implemented through wrap around services to all population groups, including kaumātua.

The initial research project, He Kāinga Pai Rawa (A Really Good Home) was funded from the Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities, National Science Challenge in 2017. This project evaluated a case where community groups worked collaboratively to finance, design and build an urban kaumātua village in Moa Crescent, Hamilton, New Zealand. With buy-in from multiple stakeholders, the village build overcame discriminatory policy, legislative barriers, and with enthusiastic support, Māori aspirations and needs for long term affordable, healthy housing for kaumātua was achieved. The village opened in 2012, was extended in 2013, and has a total of 7 one-bedroom and 7 two-bedroom units. At the time of the original research project, in 2017, there were 19 residents aged 55 to 95 years. The outcomes of the case study provided the foundation for the development of a research agenda and the design and creation of a best-practice toolkit which investigated how to translate the successful organising and residential components of the village for other Māori organisations wanting to provide secure, healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate homes for kaumātua and or whānau (family or extended family).

The present research project is an extension of the initial project and seeks to apply and further develop a toolkit of kaumātua housing as part of a thriving community. To also inspire kaupapa Māori-centred intergenerational research that addresses housing needs and aspirations to help build and contribute to vibrant and thriving communities. The project will seek to demonstrate the effectiveness of the original toolkit by working collaboratively with three communities to co-create and build culture-centred, kaumātua housing communities as well as to further develop the toolkit for other Māori organisations and communities to build safe, secure and sustainable kaumātua housing.

Māku anō e hanga tōku nei whare (Rationale)

There is a strategic shift in how cities and community are designed to create age-friendly environments as (World Health Organization [WHO], 2007, 2018). WHO (2018) has directed the shift towards the Decade of Healthy Ageing, 2021 to 2030 and yet gerontology research has long supported the importance of age-friendly environments (Baltes, 1987; Cantor, 1975; Lawton & Simon, 1968). This research suggests that the life space shapes wellbeing and can enable healthy ageing (Cantor, 1975). In addition, as people age, their needs change and hence the environment must change to match the needs (Lawton & Simon, 1968; Wahl & Gerstorf, 2020). However, older people are proactive in adapting to their environments (Wahl & Gerstorf, 2020) and the current research centres that proactive perspective.

Older people want to age in place in an age-friendly environment (Chyr et al., 2020; James & Saville-Smith, 2018). However, a number of trends limit ageing in place (Campbell-Enns et al., 2020; Chyr et al., 2020). For example, living alone, hospitalisations, older age, and cognitive and functional limitations were all associated with increased likelihood of living in residential care settings and nursing homes (Chyr et al., 2020). In addition, housing cost burden (e.g. 30% or more of income on housing) increases the likelihood of a shift to a nursing home (Jenkins Morales & Robert, 2020). Furthermore, lack of age-friendly housing is a barrier to ageing in place (Frochen & Pynoos, 2017; Luciano et al., 2020).

Poor quality housing, unaffordable housing, overcrowded housing and poor ownership among Māori in Aotearoa are some of the converging societal trends that have impacted significantly on Māori cultural, social and health issues, and in particular has an impact on kaumātua housing and ageing in place (Cram, 2016; Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 2014). The decreasing rates of home ownership among Māori (Statistics New Zealand, 2016a) and kaumātua specifically (Te Pūmanawa Hauora, 1997), despite Māori birth rates increasing (Statistics New Zealand, 2016b) is not only alarming but is disturbing. The added pressure of these downwards trends on Māori and kaumātua home ownership put extra pressure on both kaumātua and whānau in terms of resources. Such pressure is evident in rising rates of Māori living in overcrowded, temporary, poor quality housing (Cram, 2016; Statistics New Zealand, 2016a) and over-representation of Māori on waiting lists for social housing and as tenants of social housing (Baker et al., 2016). Also, the breakdown of traditional whānau systems caused by colonisation (Cram & Pitman, 1998) combined with older Māori (65+ years) owning their home and whānau experiencing financial, social and housing hardship (Cram & Pitman, 1998) results in kaumātua being susceptible to unreasonable requests (Cram, 2016) on their financial, social, and housing resources. The flow-on effect of poor quality housing is profound for Māori and reflected in poor health and wellbeing. In light of the rates of Māori living in poor quality housing, kaumātua are most likely to be disadvantaged and more negatively impacted in their potential to age positively than their non-Māori counterparts (Baker et al., 2016; Cram & Munro, 2020; Pledger et al., 2019). Kaumātua are “carriers of culture, anchors for families, models for lifestyle, bridges to the future, guardians of heritage, and role models for younger generations” (Taskforce on Whānau-Centred Initiatives, 2010, p. 14). Over generations of colonisation, kaumātua continue to maintain cultural strength and resilience in the face of a dominant non-Māori culture (Durie, 2003). Māori centred research needs to address kaumātua and whānau housing needs and aspirations to help build and contribute to vibrant and thriving communities.

Despite the bleak statistics, we utilise a strengths-based approach in this study. The deficit-based approach encourages framing Māori as the problem to be solved and falls into the trap of a deficit-model framing (Coulthard, 2014). Our strengths-based approach employs tikanga Māori (Māori cultural practices and protocols) and te ao Māori to guide solutions to housing challenges. The approach takes a Māori perspective of positive ageing including a focus on acknowledging the importance of whānau, social relationships, cultural roles for kaumātua, and culturally appropriate services (Edwards et al., 2018). Rather than waiting for the government to address key housing needs, the organisations and researchers developed a toolkit for other Māori organisations for developing age-friendly housing in order to create a vibrant and thriving community.

Ko tōna tāhūhū (The toolkit)

The whakapapa of the toolkit (Reddy et al., 2019a) originates from one of our aims from the first project and we were fortunate enough to secure funding from the Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities National Science Challenge to complete and launch this toolkit in 2019. This toolkit is not just a resource; as the tongikura suggests the toolkit can be likened to the tāhūhū (ridge pole) of a whare (house). This toolkit is a tangible commitment of our desire to support the building of safe, secure and appropriate kaumātua communities throughout the country, to help other Māori organisations and communities in their journey to co-create culture-centred, kaumātua housing communities. The toolkit is for anyone, for example, urban, rural, marae-based and other communities, who aspires to co-design and build culture-centred kaumātua housing and communities.

The toolkit was informed by residents of Moa Crescent and their whānau, as well as many others including builders, developers, lawyers, town-planners and funders. Particularly helpful were TRoK and RKCT, and the original visionaries Mere Balzer and Yvonne Wilson, leaders of the organisations, at that time, who shared their recollections of relationships, conversations and dreams of getting off the ground. The design of the toolkit went through a number of wānanga (consultation meetings) with kaumātua, iwi, marae and community representatives, government officials and Māori service providers within the Hamilton-Waikato district; these wānanga were held at Hopuhopu, the Tainui Māori tribal college in 2019. A Māori worldview of a woven universe of Te Korekore (the world of potential), Te Pō (the world of becoming) and Te Ao Mārama (the world being) (Marsden, 1992) informed the original project with Moa Crescent Kaumātua Village (Reddy et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c) Te Korekore is the world of potential where the seed of potential, with no form or substance, first starts. Te Pō is the world of becoming as seen in the emerging light during different stages of the night. Te Ao Mārama is the world of being. It is the lived world; the world of light. This Māori worldview also informed the final design of the toolkit with the three stages of development, Te Korekore, Te Pō and Te Ao Mārama (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The three stages of development of the toolkit for kaumātua housing.

Stage 1 of the toolkit, Te Korekore, Te Moemoeā, The Dream/Vision, has three sections, seen in the seed of potential, essentially creating a clear shared vision and aspiration for kaumātua and kaumātua housing. This also includes building collaborative relationships and partnerships and or maintaining long-term, high trust, sustainable and collaborative relationships. These relationships need to include key stakeholders, end-users such as kaumātua, architects, builders, city council and the like, anyone who will help achieve the vision. The final section of stage one is leadership, openness, connectedness and collaboration of the foundations for leading the project.

Stage 2, Te Pō, Kia Tūtuki te Moemoeā, The Road to Making the Dream/Vision a Reality, has two main sections: financial elements and co-creating a fit for purpose design. The first section deals with the financial side of the build. Understanding the finance and knowing how to apply for funding, creating robust financial systems and processes that benefit the housing project and help to achieve the dream or vision. Establishing preferred financial partners with a good reputation, are licenced or registered with a professional body is great for quality assurance. The second section, co-creating a fit for purpose design, includes communication, input and involvement from the end users. Understanding that their needs are ever changing and the build needs to be reflective of future residents.

Stage 3, Te Ao Mārama, Kua Ea Te Moemoeā, Achieving the Dream/Vision, has three sections. Specifically, this stage includes building kaumātua-centred tenancy relationships, providing wrap around services and finally caring for the asset. Strong relationships support housing security and wellbeing of kaumātua, support kaumātua to support each other, help to foster a feeling of belonging and ownership in their community. Providing opportunities for kaumātua to participate in the decision-making processes that impact on the maintenance and sustainability of their community is mana (status) enhancing. Ensuring health care or social service organisations provide wrap around care and support will help enable a community of well kaumātua. Finally, caring for the asset into the future and ensuring the asset remains fit for purpose can be achieved by developing asset management plans, annual audits and annual care and maintenance plans. Each of the eight sections within the three stages includes a whāinga (objective), a whakataukī (proverb), a mātāpono (value statement) and hīkoitanga (milestones) to help achieve the whāinga, as well as tools and tips, examples and or resource information, and a practical checklist.

He hīnau (Research aims)

Our research aims and vision is to inspire kaupapa Māori-centred housing to meet the needs and aspirations of kaumātua to help build and contribute to vibrant and thriving communities. The values core to our vision are kaumātua mana motuhake (self-determination, autonomy), arohatanga (compassionate, benevolence, empathy, love), manaakitanga (support, caring, respect, generosity), whanaungatanga (forging of connections and relationships) and wairuatanga (spirituality). Central to achieving the vision are collaborative community–researcher partnerships. We envisage collaborative Māori research that addresses the housing needs of Māori communities. Specifically, we are using the toolkit to help three communities develop a kaumātua housing village and conducting research about the process and impact of the housing village

Our contribution involves research that aims to (a) address Māori providers’ expressed needs for creative, best-practice approaches to co-design kaumātua communities through housing; (b) inform the development of Māori and non-Māori policies in the provision of secure, healthy and affordable homes for kaumātua and or whānau and (c) realise the potential to impact urban and rural Māori organisations by building on and sharing the success factors identified in the He Kāinga Pai Rawa study of Moa Crescent Kaumātua Village. Our specific research questions include:

RQ1. What are the facilitators and barriers to translating research of co-creating, co-designing and intergenerational communities through housing into community practice? (e.g. organisational and community development).

RQ2. In what ways does the toolkit assist Māori communities to co-create or co-design kaumātua and intergenerational communities through housing?

RQ3. What are the impacts on hauora (health and wellbeing) of the kaumātua, intergenerational villages developed through application of the toolkit on kaumātua, whānau and the community?

RQ4. How do social enterprise efforts contribute to the sustainability of a kaumātua, intergenerational village?

Ko ōna pou he māhoe (Methodology and method)

The overall approach to the research was informed and underpinned by Kaupapa Māori research, which locates Māori understandings as central to the research process and analysis. Kaupapa Māori research alongside its theoretical counterpart Kaupapa Māori Theory has distinctive cultural, epistemological and metaphysical foundations and involves a particular way of framing and structuring thought (Smith, 2012) at their centre the validation and affirmation of te reo Māori (the Māori language) and tikanga Māori. Kaupapa Māori Research carries particular cultural expectations including the active participation of, and control by, Māori within all aspects of the research and a focus on research as transformative (Smith, 2012). We will also use the He Pikinga Waiora (HPW) Implementation Framework (Oetzel et al., 2017) which utilises co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation of interventions with communities and end users. HPW centres kaupapa Māori and emphasises self-determination and mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) (Oetzel et al., 2017; Smith, 1997). In addition, HPW is built on a strong international evidence base for best practice in co-design methodologies for research and practice (Oetzel et al., 2017). Specifically, it argues that the development of research projects and interventions for Indigenous communities should be grounded in Indigenous knowledge and include four elements: culture centredness, community engagement, systems thinking and integrated knowledge translation.

Communities

We engaged with two communities during a co-design planning phase. Each community has expressed a strong desire to build a kaumātua village and planned to start the build within 12 to 18 months after the start of the project. We started working with a third community after the initial proposal was accepted that is planning a later start period for their build.

Te Rūnanga o Kirikiriroa Trust Incorporated (Te Rūnanga) is the urban Māori Authority within Kirikiriroa, Hamilton. Te Rūnanga’s focus is the holistic wellbeing of Maori and Pasifika (Pacific) peoples living in the region. They are a community housing provider and are planning an intergenerational housing village in Enderley, Hamilton, comprising about 12 units for kaumātua.

Te Rūnaka o Awarua Charitable Trust is located in Bluff, Southland, and is one of 18 papatipu rūnanga (council of ancestral lands) of Ngāi Tahu (South Island tribal group). Te Rūnaka o Awarua Charitable Trust stewards a variety of health, social, education and commercial enterprises. They recognised that housing stock is limited in Bluff and have already conducted a feasibility study for land that they hold. They are building a six-unit kaumātua village. The current homes of kaumātua, which are too large for many, can then be made available for other whānau.

Ngāruahine Iwi Health Services is part of a charitable trust established in 1989 to deliver health and social services to Māori and the wider community within the Ngāruahine Iwi takiwā (tribal borders of the Ngāruahine tribe—South Taranaki). The Governance board has a keen interest in a wide range of issues that affect the Iwi (tribe) including social services, education, youth services, environmental and cultural matters. They have a vision to develop kaumātua housing as part of a thriving intergenerational community.

The approved budget for this project enables us to provide guidance and complete a full research case study with one partner and provide guidance and support a community-driven research case study for the other partners. We selected Enderley for the full research case study because they were the furthest in their planning and development at the time of the proposal.

Data collection

The research design includes two features: (a) process evaluation during the entire build phase and (b) summative evaluation using a pre-build, post-build design to assess individual, whānau and community outcomes. These features have variations for the full research and community-led case studies. We have cultural safety and research ethics at the forefront of both processes.

Process evaluation

The build process has three primary phases: (a) design phase, (b) delivery or build phase and (c) tenancy management and or wrap around phase. These phases Te Korekore, Te Pō and Te Ao Mārama, as previously mentioned, are guided by the toolkit and our team will walk alongside the communities to guide them through each phase. We will visit each community at least three times each year and have virtual hui (meetings) as needed.

The process evaluation involves three primary forms of data collection and addresses the first two research questions: (a) wānanga, (b) interviews and or focus groups and (c) photovoice. Each of the data collection tools is co-designed with the community members with the current procedures being approved by the communities during the planning phase and revisited and adapted during the design phase. This is consistent with our methodology to have active engagement and co-design in all phases of the research.

The wānanga will involve the kanohi-ki-kanohi (face to face) hui where we will meet with the organisations and community members about the build and design phases using the toolkit as a guide. During these wānanga, minutes will be taken and used as data. The interviews or focus groups will involve semi-structured protocols using the toolkit checklists as a guide. Each of the stages’ chapters in the toolkit includes a list of questions to help reflect on the process. We will record and transcribe interviews with approximately 10 different members in each community during each year. The participants will be members of Boards, builders, financial officers, and community members as negotiated between the community and the research team. The photovoice will involve videos and pictures taken by the community to document the process. We will ask members of the community organisations to record—photos or videos—various aspects of the process that are meaningful to them and take notes about these recordings (Catalani & Minkler, 2010; Dassah et al., 2017; Evans-Agnew & Rosemberg, 2016).

Community researchers are hired by each community’s organisation and taken through an orientation programme related to the research aims, methodology and procedures. This approach is fundamental to the co-design process and to capacity development of the community researchers. Future orientations will include data analysis and interpretation methods. Community researchers capture data from the wānanga, co-conduct interviews and complete the photovoice procedures.

Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) will be used for data analysis following procedures we used during Tranche 1. Community researchers will be involved to the extent they are available (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Simpson et al., 2019). Themes will be shared with the communities as a validity check with revisions to the analysis and interpretation where indicated. The data will also be used to revise the toolkit.

Summative evaluation

The summative evaluation for the full research case study will involve a pre-build and post-build design with 50 members in Enderley. The number of participants was determined by a balance of resources and power to determine the optimal design. Based on a retention rate of 67% from our previous research with kaumātua, we expect to retain 34 participants. Confirmed with the NCSS-PASS software (Hintze, 2001), this sample size is sufficient to detect a medium effect size (d = .5, power = .80, p = .05) from pre-test to final post-test. There is an absence of quantitative literature identifying impacts of kaumātua villages on individuals; in this absence, a medium effect size is warranted.

The specific participants who will move into the village are not yet identified. Thus, our sampling frame will include likely members based on purpose of the build—that is, intergenerational housing. In this manner, we will have a larger sample of participants in the first year than will actually move into the village. We will ask all participants to complete the data collection in year 4 as well to have some comparative information and yet still ensure that we have sufficient numbers of participants who experienced a move into the villages.

Data collection will involve two approaches: (a) individual questionnaires and (b) community-level assessments. The individual questionnaire will involve measures of hauora and mana motuhake using scales validated via our empirical research with kaumātua (Oetzel et al., 2015b, 2019a, 2019b). We will use the following: self-reported health (Achat et al., 2010; Dulin et al., 2011), health-related quality of life (Ware et al., 2001; Wu et al., 1991), spirituality (Statistics New Zealand, 2013), whānau wellbeing, social support and social connectedness or loneliness (Oetzel et al., 2019a, 2019b) life satisfaction (Cantril, 1965), housing satisfaction including affordability, safety and quality (Statistics New Zealand, 2018), and perceptions of neighbourhood sustainability and safety (Bijoux, 2012). The post version will include qualitative questions to further explore the experiences of those who moved into the village. These will be administered through an interview format. All measures will be revisited with the communities prior to implementation and the questionnaire will be limited to under 35 items to not overburden participants. It will be available in English and te reo Māori; the English version is displayed in supplementary Appendix 1. Participants will receive a $50 koha (gift, offering) for each data collection point.

The community-level assessment may involve checklists of community wellbeing guided by the Community Health Environmental Scan Survey Assessment (Wong et al., 2011) and housing measures including cost per square metre, and stock availability (WHO, 2018). Along with the individual questionnaires, these will be administered by the community researcher and research team during the first and fourth year of the project—that is, 6 to 12 months post completion of the build.

Prior to conducting the primary data analysis, the psychometric properties of the scales will be re-affirmed to the extent possible. Factorial validity will be assessed with confirmatory factor analysis using a copy method to get sufficient sample size and reliability established with Cronbach’s α. Analysis will be completed with AMOS 27 (Arbuckle, 2017). Descriptive statistics will be calculated at both pre- and post-build stages. The primary data analysis will involve paired sample t-tests to assess pre- to post-build changes. Analysis will be completed with SPSS 27 (Corp, 2017).

For the other cases, the research team and community researchers will work together to complete qualitative interviews of new residents, whānau, builders and board members about 6 to 12 months post-completion of the interviews. These interviews will enable us to retrospectively assess impact of the build on the community and residents in the village. These will also provide some comparative information to the Enderley case study.

Cultural safety and research ethics

Ethics approval has been obtained through the University of Waikato Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC WMS 20/54). We are mindful that the projects may involve sensitive topics, and we will utilise our prior experience and that of the wider team to protect participants’ confidentiality and mana. Furthermore, the research team worked with our Expert Advisory Group made up of experts in housing, health and social services and the Board Advisory Group made up of kaumātua from RKCT to ensure kaumātua input to develop a training procedure around data collection including secure data management procedures that ensures participant safety. Given our previous experience interviewing kaumātua, we will use a culturally appropriate approach for data collection developed in our earlier projects (Oetzel et al., 2015a, 2019b)

He pātete (Discussion)

Several facets of this project are key to the success process and the building output. Our approach requires kaumātua and or end-users to be co-creators and co-designers of fit-for-purpose communities. Co-design or participatory action approaches (Oetzel et al., 2017; Wallerstein et al., 2018) are culturally congruent and have a demonstrated evidence base of developing various health and social interventions that addresses inequities. The co-design approach enables kaumātua and or end users to have a voice in the process and outputs which enhances the fit-for-purpose design. The process enhances mana motuhake and is self-determining.

The sharing and translation of success factors identified in the toolkit will help to achieve the aspirations of Māori and kaumātua for long-term, healthy and affordable homes and reflects the importance of sharing mātauranga (knowledge). The success factors identified in He Kāinga Pai Rawa and applied in the He Kāinga Pai Rawa mo ngā kaumātua toolkit (Reddy et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d), will aid in the scalability and transferability to three Māori community kaumātua housing projects. The success factors centre on the culture-centred approach, community agency in the co-design process, and collaboration with the practicalities of construction and co-creating a community (Simpson et al., 2022). The success factors for kaumātua included experiencing common needs and aspirations, enjoying community and marae involvement, being connected with other kaumātua and living in compatible communities—all of which positively impact their social and cultural wellbeing (Reddy et al., 2019c). This project involves willing partners in three, already identified, kaumātua housing projects; two rural and one urban based. All have expressed a desire to willingly share this mātauranga to help kaumātua throughout Aotearoa live in age-friendly spaces. This sharing is seen as a way to enhance capacity of other organisations and communities who might benefit from the knowledge created through the process.

This project emphasises a strengths-based, rather than deficit-based, approach (Coulthard, 2014). Our strengths-based approach uses Māori tikanga and te ao Māori to guide solutions to housing challenges because the toolkit and other housing solutions have been created from this worldview previously. A Māori perspective of positive ageing (Edwards et al., 2018) builds on key Māori cultural values and looks to these values to guide the projects rather than focussing on the problems and deficits. The key values core to our vision are kaumātua mana motuhake, arohatanga, manaakitanga, whanaungatanga and wairuatanga, which delivered the successful Moa Crescent village.

Finally, this project will help to demonstrate the effectiveness of the toolkit in the communities as well as to further develop the toolkit for other Māori organisations and communities to build safe, secure and sustainable kaumātua/intergenerational housing. Such developments with the toolkit may include working with multiple partnerships in developing community housing, integrating kaumātua housing as part of a wider intergenerational view of housing communities, investigating different ownerships models for kaumātua, utilising alternative cost-effective construction options, and providing wrap-around services in rural areas. In this way the toolkit will remain responsive to the complexities of developing housing communities for kaumātua and whānau.

Whakakapinga (Closing)

Hei whakakapi ake i ēnei kōrero me hoki anō ki te tongikura a Tāwhiao, “Māku anō tōku whare e hanga,” e mea ana ia ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke, me ūpoko pakaru te rapu tētahi atu huarahi hei oranga mā te iwi. Ehara i te mea kotahi noa te huarahi, kotahi noa te whakaaro, engari, mā te mahi tahi, ā-hapori mai, ā-kaiwhakawhiwhi ratonga mai, ā-kairangahau mai i runga i te whakaaro kotahi me te whai koha ki tēnā, ki tēnā, kātahi, ka puawai ai ngā maruāpō o te katoa. Me mihi ngā hapori, ngā kaiwhakawhiwhi ratonga ka tika, me kore ake aua momo hei tautoko i tēnei rangahau, kua kore rawa ēnei rangahau e eke ki ngā taumata e tika ana. Ka mutu, he pūkenga, he pūmanawa o tēnā, o tēnā me tohatoha kia whai mātauranga ai te katoa. I kō atu i tēnā, me whai reo aua momo hunga i roto hoki i ngā whakawhitinga kōrero, kaua rawa e riro mā te kairangahau anake e whakatau ngā kōrero katoa. Hei whakatepe ake, me noho ki mua noa atu te tikanga Māori, te kaupapa Māori, te ao Māori hei tūāpapa, hei ārahi anō hoki i te kairangahau kia tōtika ai ngā mahi.

In closing let us return to the prophetic saying by Tāwhiao, who urges us not to give up, to expend our energies to find more suitable ways for the betterment of our people. By respecting and working together with kaumātua, communities, Māori organisations and researchers, only then will the dreams and aspirations truly flourish. A huge thank you to our kaumātua, communities and Māori organisations for supporting research like this as surely without their support transformational research would not happen or reach the heights that it should. It is also important that our communities & Māori organisations are front and centre, have a voice and be a part of the decision-making process. Finally, the Māori culture, the Māori philosophical framework for research and the Māori worldview should always be at the forefront.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-aln-10.1177_11771801221126350 – Supplemental material for He kāinga pai rawa: Te Kete Mātauranga mō te hanga whare tino pai rawa—a knowledge basket to support building affordable and safe housing for the elderly

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-aln-10.1177_11771801221126350 for He kāinga pai rawa: Te Kete Mātauranga mō te hanga whare tino pai rawa—a knowledge basket to support building affordable and safe housing for the elderly by Sophie Nock, Yvonne Wilson, Rangimahora Reddy, Kath Holmes, Mary Simpson and John Oetzel in AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples

Footnotes

Authors’ note

Sophie Nock (PhD) is of Ngāti Kurī descent and an Associate Professor in Te Pua Wānanga ki te Ao—Faculty of Māori & Indigenous Studies at the University of Waikato, New Zealand. She has been primarily involved in the teaching and researching of te reo Māori, and has published in these areas. She is the te reo Māori interface with a number of community health providers throughout the country on research projects investigating housing concerns, health and wellbeing-related outcomes for kaumātua. She is also a researcher and Māori consultant on the concussion recovery assessments in adolescence and childhood project, looking at how whānau manage concussion recovery.

Yvonne Wilson is of Ngāti Kahungungu descent. She is the Korowai Manaaki Housing Manager for Te Runanga O Kirikiriroa and leading a large team working across the housing continuum, from homelessness to home ownership. Yvonne has over 25 years’ experience in working in Kaumatua and housing services. In 2019, The Tangata Whenua, Community and Voluntary Sector acknowledged her work that demonstrated a positive influence on communities through engagement, leadership collaboration and inclusion in the research. As part of a team, Yvonne has been actively involved in building Better Homes Towns and Cities National Science Challenge, the team’s vision to develop a Kaupapa Maori Kaumatua housing toolkit for the benefit of like-minded housing providers was undertaken and successfully completed. Yvonne remains committed to her mahi through a Whānau First, Tikanga Based and Wellbeing Focused approach.

Rangimahora Reddy (Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato Tainui, Ngāti Rangiwewehi me Rangitāne) is originally from Himatangi. Rangimahora has worked for Rauawaawa Kaumātua Charitable Trust since 2010. Working with Kaumātua or those she describes as “ngā mātauranga taonga” makes Rauawaawa a very special place to be. Rangimahora has been educated at Massey University and has spent the last three decades working in both the health and education sectors.

Kath Holmes (Te Arawa, Te Aihanga-A-Mahaki) is a Nurse Practitioner Intern working in Primary Health Care. With over 23 years of experience working within the health and disability sector, Kath is passionate about Māori health, kaumātua (older persons) and rural health. She has a particular interest in long-term conditions management, and research opportunities that ensure a collaborative approach to quality health and social services, and access that supports equitable health outcomes for peoples in Aotearoa.

Mary Simpson (PhD) is an Associate Professor in the School of Management of Marketing at the University of Waikato. Her research explores community-driven issues using the lenses of health and organisational communication. She collaborates with Māori academic and community researchers to address health inequities, social justice and policy issues that impact Māori kaumātua (older Māori) and potentially other Indigenous communities with histories of colonisation, as well as older people in Aotearoa New Zealand.

John Oetzel is a professor of health and intercultural communication in the University of Waikato’s Management School. He uses community-engaged research to collaboratively work with communities to address various health issues to improve health equity. His current work includes the collaborative development of interventions with two Māori health and social service organisations related to housing (He Kāinga Pai Rawa, Building Better Homes Towns & Cities National Science Challenge) and with 11 Māori health organisations on positive ageing (Kaumātua Mana Motuhake Pōī, Ageing Well National Science Challenge). He is also part of a team developing an implementation research network of Māori and Pacific community providers and research to facilitate research into practice to support health equity (Healthier Lives National Science Challenge & Ministry of Health). He was also part of a US NIH-funded project to examine promising practices in community-engaged research (Engage for Equity).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article: NSC Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities 108376.

ORCID iD

Sophie Nock

Glossary

Maōri language

Aotearoa New Zealand

arohatanga compassionate, benevolence empathy, love

hauora health and wellbeing

he hīnau research aims

He Kāinga Pai Rawa A Really Good Home

he pātete discussion

hīkoitanga milestones

hīnau Elaeocarpus dentatus; tall forest tree with long leaves

hui meetings

iwi people; tribe

kanohi-ki-kanohi face to face

kaumātua elders

kaupapa Māori Māori approach, ideology, philosophy

kawariki Coprosma grandifolia; a large shrub with pairs of thin wavy, mottled leaves and edible red berries

Kia Tūtuki te Moemoeā The Road to Making the Dream/Vision a Reality

koha gift, offering

ko ōna pou he māhoe methodology and method

ko te kaumātua tōmua building kaumātua-centred tenancy relationships

ko tōna tāhūhū the tool kit; literally, its ridgepole—referring to a house

Kua Ea te Moemoeā Achieving the Dream/Vision

māhoe Melicytus ramiflorus; a common tree in regrowth and coastal bush

māku anō tōku whare e hanga rationale

mana status

mana motuhake self-determination, autonomy

manaakitanga support, caring, respect, generosity

Māori Indigenous peoples of New Zealand

mātāpono value statement

mātauranga knowledge

mātauranga Māori Māori knowledge

me mārama ki te taha pūtea me te tono pūtea building collaborative relationships and partnerships

Ngāi Tahu South Island tribal group

Ngāruahine Iwi takiwā tribal borders of the Ngāruahine tribe—South Taranaki

papatipu rūnanga council of ancestral lands

patatē Schefflera digitata; a small forest tree

rengarenga Tetragonia tetragonioides; rock lily

rohe district

te ao Māori Māori world and worldview

Te Ao Mārama The world of being; the lived world; the world of light

te ārihi i te moemoeā leading the project

te kīngi Māori tuarua the second Māori king

Te Korekore The world of potential; where the seed of potential, with no form or substance, first starts

te mahi tahi me te hanga whanaungatanga building collaborative relationships and partnerships

Te Moemoeā The Dream/Vision

Te Pō the world of becoming; as seen in the emerging light during different stages of the night

te rato āwhina providing wrap-around services

te reo Māori the Māori language

te tiaki whare caring for your asset

te waihanga moemoeā creating the vision

te waihanga whare tōtika co-creating fit-for-purpose design

tikanga Māori Māori custom, cultural practices and protocols

tongikura prophetic saying

tuhinga whakarāpopoto abstract

wairuatanga spirituality

wānanga consultation meetings

whāinga objective

whakakapinga closing

whakapapa origins

whakapuakanga references

whakataukī proverb

whakatuwheratanga introduction

whānau family or extended family

whanaungatanga forging of connections and relationships

whare house

Pan-Pacific languages

Pasifika Pacific

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Achat

H. M.

Thomas

G. R.

Moerkerken

L. R.

Harris

M. F.

(2010). General health care service utilisation: Where, when and by whom in a socioeconomically disadvantaged population. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 16(2), 132–140.

Arbuckle

(2017). SPSS AMOS (Version 25). IBM SPSS.

Baker

M. G.

Zhang

Blakely

Crane

Saville-Smith

Howden-Chapman

(2016). Collaborating with a social housing provider supports a large cohort study of the health effects of housing conditions. BMC Public Health, 16, Article 159.

Baltes

P. B.

(1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611–626.

Bijoux

(2012). A neighbourhood sustainability framework for New Zealand: Beacon’s research and tools (Report NH2012/3 for Beacon Pathway). Beacon Pathway.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006, 377–101.

Campbell-Enns

H. J.

Campbell

Rieger

K. L.

Thompson

G. N.

Doupe

M. B.

(2020). No other safe care option: Nursing home admission as a last resort strategy. The Gerontologist, 60, 1504–1514.

Cantor

M. H.

(1975). Life space and the social support system of the inner-city elderly of New York. The Gerontologist, 15, 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/15.1_part_1.23

Cantril

(1965). The pattern of human concerns. Rutgers University Press.

10.

Catalani

Minkler

(2010). Photovoice: A review of the literature in health and public health. Health Education & Behavior, 37(3), 424–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198109342084

11.

Chyr

L. C.

Drabo

E. F.

Fabius

C. D.

(2020). Pattern and predictors of transitions across residential care settings and nursing homes among community-dwelling older adults in the United States. The Gerontologist, 60, 1495–1502.

12.

IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows (Version 25).

13.

Coulthard

(2014). Red skins, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press.

14.

Cram

(2016). Older Māori: Downsizing experiences, outcomes and needs. Katoa.

15.

Cram

Munro

(2020). Life when renting for older Māori. Alternative, 16, 64–75.

16.

Cram

Pitama

(1998). Ko tōku whānau, ko tōku mana. In Adair

Dixon

(Eds.), The family in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 130–157). Addison Wesley Longman.

17.

Dassah

Aldersey

H. M.

Norman

K. E.

(2017). Photovoice and persons with physical disabilities: A scoping review of the literature. Qualitative Health Research, 27(9), 1412–1422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316687731

18.

Dulin

P. L.

Stephens

Alpass

Hill

R. D.

Stevenson

(2011). The impact of socio-contextual, physical and lifestyle variables on measures of physical and psychological wellbeing among Māori and non-Māori: The New Zealand Health, Work and Retirement Study. Ageing and Society, 31(8), 1406–1404.

19.

Durie

(2003). The health of Indigenous peoples. BMJ, 326, 510–511.

20.

Edwards

Theodore

Ratima

Reddy

(2018). Māori positive ageing. New Zealand Medial Journal, 131(1484), 10–12.

21.

Evans-Agnew

R. A.

Rosemberg

M.-A. S.

(2016). Questioning photovoice research: Whose voice? Qualitative Health Research, 26(8), 1019–1030. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315624223

22.

Frochen

Pynoos

(2017). Housing for the elderly: Addressing gaps in knowledge through the lens of age-friendly communities. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 31, 160–177.

23.

Hintze

(2001). NCSS and PASS. Number Cruncher Statistical Systems.

24.

James

B. L.

Saville-Smith

(2018). Designing housing decision-support tools for resilient older people. Architectural Science Review, 61, 305–312.

25.

Jenkins Morales

Robert

S. A

. (2020). The effects of housing cost burden and housing tenure on moves to a nursing home among low- and moderate-income older adults. The Gerontologist, 60, 1485–1494.

26.

Lawton

M. P.

Simon

(1968). The ecology of social relationships in housing for the elderly. The Gerontologist, 8, 108–115.

27.

Luciano

Pascale

Polverino

Pooley

(2020). Measuring age-friendly housing: A framework. Sustainability, 12, Article 848.

28.

Mahuta

R. T.

(1993). “Tāwhiao, Tūkāroto Matutaera Pōtatau Te Wherowhero,” Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1993, updated July, 2011. Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2t14/tawhiao-tukaroto-matutaera-potatau-te-wherowhero (accessed 26 August 2022).

29.

Marsden

(1992). God, man and universe: A Māori view. In King

(Ed.), Te Ao Hurihuri (pp. 117–137). Reed Books.

30.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2014). He Whare Āhuru He Ōranga Tāngata: The Māori Housing Strategy—Directions 2014 to 2015.

31.

Oetzel

Hokowhitu

Simpson

Reddy

Cameron

Meha

Johnston

Nock

Greensill

Harding

Shelford

Smith

L. T.

(2019a). Kaumātua Mana Motuhake: A study protocol for a peer education intervention to help Māori elders work through later-stage life transitions. BMC Geriatrics, 19, Article 36.

32.

Oetzel

Hokowhitu

Simpson

Reddy

Nock

Greensill

Cameron

Meha

Johnston

Harding

Shelford

Smith

L. T.

(2019b). Correlates of health-related quality of life for Māori elders involved in a peer education intervention. Journal of Health Communication, 24, 559–569.

33.

Oetzel

Scott

Hudson

Masters-Awatere

Rarere

Foote

Beaton

Ehau

(2017). Implementation framework for chronic disease intervention effectiveness in Māori and other Indigenous communities. Global Health, 2017, Article 1369.

34.

Oetzel

Simpson

Berryman

Iti

Reddy

(2015b). Managing communication tensions and challenges during the end-of-life journey: Perspectives of Māori kaumātua and their whānau. Health Communication, 2015, 30350–30360.

35.

Oetzel

Simpson

Berryman

Reddy

(2015a). Differences in ideal communication behaviours during end-of-life care for Māori carers/patients and palliative care workers. Palliative Medicine, 29, 764–766.

36.

Pledger

McDonald

Dunn

Cumming

Saville-Smith

(2019). The health of older New Zealanders in relation to housing tenure: Analysis of pooled data from three consecutive, annual New Zealand Health Surveys. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 43, 182–189.

37.

Reddy

Simpson

Wilson

Nock

(2019a). He kainga pai rawa atu mō ngā kaumātua: A toolkit for kaumātua housing. Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities National Science Challenge (BBHTC< NSC). https://www.buildingbetter.nz/publications/ktkr/Reddy_et_al_2019_Toolkit_Kaumātua_Housing.pdf

38.

Reddy

Simpson

Wilson

Nock

Johnston

(2019b). Think piece one: Te moemoeā: The dream. Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities National Science Challenge. https://www.buildingbetter.nz/publications/ktkr/Reddy_et_al_2019_Think_Piece_1_Te_Moemoea.pdf

39.

Reddy

Simpson

Wilson

Nock

Johnston

(2019c). Think piece two: Kia tūtuki te moemoeā: The road to making the dream/vision a reality. Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities National Science Challenge. https://www.buildingbetter.nz/publications/ktkr/Reddy_et_al_2019_Think_Piece_2_Kia_Tutuki.pdf

40.

Reddy

Simpson

Wilson

Nock

Johnston

(2019d). Think piece three: Te Ao Mārama—Kua ea te moemoeā: Achieving the dream/vision. Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities National Science Challenge. https://www.buildingbetter.nz/publications/ktkr/Reddy_et_al_2019_Think_Piece_3_Te_Ao_Marama.pdf

41.

Simpson

Greensill

Nock

Meha

Harding

Shelford

Hokowhitu

Oetzel

Reddy

(2019). Kaumātua mana motuhake in action: Developing a culture-centred peer support programme for managing transitions in later life. Ageing & Society, 40, 1822–1845.

42.

Simpson

M. L.

Oetzel

Wilson

Nock

Johnston

Reddy

(2022). Co-designing a culture-centered age-friendly community for Māori kaumātua: Cultural principles and practices. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 2022, Article gbac092. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbac092

43.

Smith

G. H.

(1997). The development of kaupapa Māori: Theory and praxis. University of Auckland.

44.

Smith

L. T.

(2012). Decolonising methodologies: Research and Indigenous people. University of Otago Press.

45.

Statistics New Zealand. (2013). Te Kupenga 2013: A survey of Māori well-being.

46.

Statistics New Zealand. (2016a). Changes in home-ownership patterns 1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people.

47.

Statistics New Zealand. (2016b). Ethnicity and crowding: A detailed examination of crowding among ethnic groups in New Zealand 1986-2006.

48.

Statistics New Zealand. (2018). General social survey.

49.

Taskforce on Whānau-Centred Initiatives. (2010). Whānau Ora: Report of the taskforce on Whānau-centred initiatives.

50.

Te Pūmanawa Hauora. (1997). Oranga kaumātua: The health and wellbeing of older Māori people—A report prepared for the Ministry of Health and Te Puni Kōkiri. Te Puni Kōkiri.

51.

Wahl

H.-W.

Gerstorf

(2020). Person–environment resources for aging well: Environmental docility and life space as conceptual pillars for future contextual gerontology. The Gerontologist, 60, 368–375.

52.

Wallerstein

Duran

Oetzel

Minkler

, (Eds.). (2018). Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

53.

Ware

Kosinski

Dewey

J. E.

Gandek

(2001). How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: A manual for users of the SF-8 health survey. QualityMetric.

54.

Wong

Stevens

O’Connor-Duffany

Siegel

Gao

(2011). Community health environment scan survey (CHESS): A novel tool that captures the impact of the built environment on lifestyle factors. Global Health Action, 4, Article 5276.

55.

World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43755/9789241547307_eng.pdf?sequence=1

56.

World Health Organization. (2018). The global network for age-friendly cities and communities: Looking back over the last decade, looking forward to the next. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/278979/WHO-FWC-ALC-18.4-eng.pdf?sequence=1

57.

Rubin

Matthews

Ware

Brysk

Hardy

Bozzette

Spector

Richman

(1991). A health status questionnaire using 30 items from the medical outcomes study. Medical Care, 29:, 786–798.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB