| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | The Aotearoa Circle: Nature-based solutions - Investment Evaluation Framework (January 2026) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | About this Nature-based Solutions Investment Evaluation Framework This Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) Investment Evaluation Framework has been developed to support the multiple benefit analysis for a nature-based solution to an infrastructure challenge. This Framework has been developed using the original Mauri Model developed by Dr. Kēpa Morgan and The Aotearoa Circle wishes to acknowledge Dr. Morgan and his team accordingly. Dr. Morgan originally created the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework and mauri-0-meter in 2004 while researching Lake Rotorua's water quality for his Doctoral Studies at the University of Auckland. More information on the Mauri Model is available: https://www.maurimodel.nz The Investment Evaluation Framework is a decision-making framework that combines a stakeholder assessment of worldviews, with a qualitative impact assessment using a range of indicators to determine the multiple benefits of NbS, and to evaluate trends over time. This Framework uses the concept of mauri as the measure of sustainability, rather than the conventional monetary based assessment. | ` | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Users for the Investment Evaluation Framework The intended users of this Framework include private, public and iwi/Māori, infrastructure developers. Its seeks to support users primarily looking to evaluate the fiscal, risk and resilience, environmental, social and cultural benefits associated with a NbS. The Framework also assesses these benefits over multiple time horizons to reflect the long-term nature of infrastructure, and the appreciation of natural assets. This framework can be used to evaluate one or many infrastructure designs - whether opting for a traditional approach or a nature-based approach. This Investment Evaluation Framework forms a key part of a NbS Investment Decision Making Process (which includes underlying) Investment Principles, developed by The Aotearoa Circle as part of the Natural Infrastructure Plan. LINK For practical demonstration of leading practice NbS case studies using the multiple benefits outlined in Tab 2, refer to the separate Case Studies Report prepared by The Aotearoa Circle as part of the Natural Infrastructure Plan. LINK | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Acknowledgements This Investment Evaluation Framework was developed leveraging the Mauri Model initially developed by Dr. Kēpa Morgan and The Aotearoa Circle wishes to acknowledge Dr Morgan and his team accordingly. Within the context of the Natural Infrastructure Plan, developed by The Aotearoa Circle, this Investment Evaluation Framework was developed by Erica Miles. Input into the benefits and indicators was completed by Mark Fitzpatrick, Sam Parsons, and Dr Robin Mitchell. The Aotearoa Circle would like to also acknowledge Dr. Daniel Hikuroa, Associate Professor from the University of Auckland for his advice and guidance. Thank-you. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | What is Mauri? Mauri – the physical life principle (Marsden 2003, Peet, 2006) represents the capacity for air, water or soil to support life (Marsden, 2003) and is a universal concept in Māori thinking. Mauri is found in water, land, forests as well as mist, wind, soil and rocks, and is the force that interpenetrates all things to bind and knit them together (Marsden & Henare, 2002). Mauri is a concept that permeates all Māori thinking and has been shown to be suitable as a measure of sustainability (Morgan, 2006). When actions impact negatively upon the mauri of something this essential bond is weakened (or broken), and can potentially result in the separation of the physical and spiritual elements resulting in the death of a living thing or alternatively the loss of a thing’s capacity to support other life. (Morgan, 2006, p. 171). The use of mauri as the measure of sustainability allows for a more accurate representation of the benefits and impacts of certain actions/options. These are not always represented or included in monetary based assessments, but are nonetheless important to the decision-making process (Morgan, 2026). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | Assessing the impacts and benefits using the Investment Evaluation Framework The Investment Evaluation Framework is a qualitative assessment and uses stakeholder inputs to complete. Key indicators relevant to the evaluation of a NbS are provided in Tab 2. Assessment of the impact to mauri of each indicator is made on an integer value from -2 to +2, with +2 representing mauri at full potential or fully restored; +1, mauri at partial potential or partially restored; 0, no change; -1, partial degradation; and -2, complete degradation as shown in the figure below. The Investment Evaluation Framework is provided in Tab 3. Not all indicators may be relevant to a Users project. In this instance new indicators are able to be used, and/or key indicators removed. Mauri Meter for Performance Indicator Assessment (Morgan and Teaho, 2013). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | References Hikuroa, D et al. (2011). Implementing Māori indigenous knowledge (māTauranga) in a scientific paradigm: Restoring the mauri to Te Kete Poutama. MAI Review, 2011, 3 Marsden, M. (2003). The natural world and natural resources: Māori value systems and perspectives. In C. Royal (Ed.), The woven universe. Masterton: The Estate of Rev. Māori Marsden. Marsden, M., & Henare, T. A. (2002). Kaitiakitanga: A definitive introduction to the holistic world view of the Māori. Masterton: The Estate of Rev. Māori Marsden. Morgan, T. K. K. B. (2006). Decision-support tools and the indigenous paradigm. Engineering Sustainability, 159(ES4), 169–177. Morgan, T.K.K.B., Teaho, L., 2013. Waikato Taniwharau: prioritising competing needs in co-management of the Waikato river. Adv. Environ. Res. 29, 85–106. Morgan, T.K.K.B. The Mauri Model. Retrieved January 2026: https://www.maurimodel.nz/about-1 Peet, J. (2006). Systems thinking and common ground. International Journal of Transdisciplinary Research, 1(1), 88–99. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||