Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: 0966-9582 (Print) 1747-7646 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Integrating agroecology and sustainable tourism:

applying geodesign to farm management in
Aotearoa New Zealand

Antoni Moore, Marion Johnson, Jeremiah Gbolagun, Aubrey Miller, Anneke

Rombouts, Loes van der Ven, Janice Lord, Sam Coutts, Mariana Pagan & G.
Brent Hall

To cite this article: Antoni Moore, Marion Johnson, Jeremiah Gbolagun, Aubrey Miller, Anneke
Rombouts, Loes van der Ven, Janice Lord, Sam Coutts, Mariana Pagan & G. Brent Hall (2018):
Integrating agroecology and sustainable tourism: applying geodesign to farm management in
Aotearoa New Zealand, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2018.1484751

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1484751

Published online: 24 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1484751

Integrating agroecology and sustainable tourism: applying

geodesign to farm management in Aotearoa New Zealand
Antoni Moorea, Marion Johnsonb, Jeremiah Gbolaguna, Aubrey Millera,
Anneke Romboutsc, Loes van der Venc, Janice Lordd, Sam Couttsa,
Mariana Pagana and G. Brent Halla,e
a
School of Surveying, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; bFuture Farming Centre, Lincoln, New
Zealand; cHAS University of Applied Sciences, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands; dDepartment of Botany,
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; eEsri Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In Aotearoa New Zealand, M
aori land is frequently owned by local com- Received 30 July 2017
munities and managed by trusts. For such arrangements on rural hold- Accepted 24 May 2018
ings, land managers often wish both to provide for their communities
and implement agricultural management practices in a culturally
KEYWORDS
responsive manner. Agroecology offers an alternative model of land agroecology; GIS;
management and provides opportunities for the development of visitor Agritourism; visitor
programmes to learn about and observe traditional practices. This paper access; farming
reports on the integration of agroecology and tourism on a working
farm in Te Wai Pounamu South Island, Aotearoa New Zealand. The pro-
gramme successfully applied spatial analysis in a geographical informa-
tion system (GIS) within an iterative geodesign framework to plan a
route for visitor access across the farm, with suitable areas identified for
information platforms located strategically along the way. These agri-
tourism related features were visually communicated through maps
generated by the GIS. Such visualisation makes the possible consequen-
ces of change more accessible and understandable to decision makers.
As well as satisfying the need to verify the approach empirically, there
are plans underway to apply GIS in this way to other similarly managed
farms in Aotearoa New Zealand.

HIGHLIGHTS:

Iterative geodesign approach used to evolve sites for access paths
and information platforms

Approach is of public interest, hence the need for planning farm
access facilities for tourists

Agroecology-based plan for managing a traditionally run farm in
Aotearoa New Zealand

Local cultural values addressed by GIS for positive environmental
and economic impact

CONTACT Antoni Moore tony.moore@otago.ac.nz School of Surveying, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin
9054, New Zealand.
ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. MOORE ET AL.

Introduction
Globally there is increasing interest in farming strategies that can be used to manage land in a
sustainable manner. Agroecology is one such method that marries farming with the ecology of
the landscape and a socioeconomic perspective (Altieri, 1995). This approach creates opportuni-
ties that foster the growth of alternative income streams, including agritourism, defined as tour-
ism related to any form of agriculture (Flanigan, Blackstock, & Hunter, 2014; Phillip, Hunter, &
Blackstock, 2010). To facilitate agritourism planning, geographic information systems (GIS) can be
used to explore and illustrate options for visitor access to observe farming activities, develop vis-
itor experiences, and promote the positive environmental and economic impact of sustainable
agriculture.

The case for biological principles and agroecology in farming

Agriculture is the backbone of the economy in Aotearoa New Zealand1. As of 2007, farmland
made up 54.8% of the total land in Aotearoa New Zealand, with the majority categorised as pas-
ture land (Statistics New Zealand, 2009). In terms of the national land area, over one million hec-
tares in the country are designated as “M
aori land,” held by local M
aori communities (Isaac,
2011), and often administered by trusts (Kingi, 2000). Anecdotally many farm trusts envisage a
sustainable agricultural system utilising organic, biological or low chemical methods, thus
decreasing the long-term impact of farming on the environment. Changing from chemical-based
agriculture while maintaining healthy animals at economical stocking rates, can be a challenge
without a significant alteration to management practices and consideration of additional income
streams. However, the objective of many M
aori agricultural trusts is to achieve precisely that, by
balancing economic output through the use of culturally and socially appropriate manage-
ment systems.
In Aotearoa New Zealand the development of an agroecological paradigm has seen the inclu-
sion of m
atauranga M
aori (M
aori traditional knowledge) and Totohungatanga Moriori (Moriori
traditional knowledge) in agroecological practices (Johnson et al., 2013). Agroecology encourages
the reduction of external inputs to the farm (Altieri, 1995; Altieri & Nicholls, 2012; Blesh & Wolf,
2014) and, with this in mind, some trusts have requested farm plans to make native plants avail-
able to livestock, to improve their diet and treat ailments using traditional knowledge. These
plants can be included in farm plans as boundary, silvopastoral or riparian plantings
(Johnson, 2015).

Tourism in the context of agroecology

Hansen (1939) coined the term agroecology as he believed it was vital to link agriculture and
ecology together if agricultural practices were to be sustainable. By the 1980s agroecology had
evolved into the application of scientific best practices that facilitate sustainable agriculture
(Altieri, 1995, 1999; Wezel & Jauneau, 2011; Wezel, Bellon, Dore, Francis, Vallod, & David, 2009).
More recently, the term has evolved further to focus on the larger food system, incorporating
social and economic sustainability, with a recognition that a sustainable agroecosystem exists in
a broader socioeconomic context (Addinsall, Weiler, Scherrer, & Glencross, 2017; Altieri, 2002;
Dalgaard, Hutchings, & Porter, 2003; Francis et al., 2003; Gliessman, 2015; Wezel et al., 2009). One
mechanism for long-term agricultural sustainability in rural areas is to approach agroecology as a
practice that, in addition to supporting healthy agroecosystems, can also sustain land owners
with additional income sources (Addinsall, Glencross, Scherrer, Weiler, & Nichols, 2015; Lovell
et al., 2010).
Tourism in Aotearoa New Zealand is a large part of the overall economy, directly contributing
5.9% to the GDP (year ending March 2017), with many indirect benefits to the economy, including
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 3

activity in rural areas (MBIE, 2018). The industry is experiencing sharp growth, which is expected
to continue over the next decade (MBIE, 2017), with many visitors interested in both the cultural
history and ecological landscapes of Aotearoa New Zealand. For example, based on an annual sur-
vey of international visitors by New Zealand’s Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment,
there were an estimated one million visits made to a place of M
aori significance and 1.6 million
visits made to a national park in 2016 (Statistics New Zealand, 2017). Farm visits and farm stays
have an established history in the country (Busby & Rendle, 2000) and are growing. Based on the
same government survey of international visitors, 115,000 visits were made to a farm or orchard
in 2006 compared with 837,000 visits made in 2016 (Statistics New Zealand, 2017).
Agritourism has been broadly defined in the literature as the linkage of tourists to working
farms (Flanigan et al., 2014; Phillip et al., 2010). However, the link between agroecology and agri-
tourism is not necessarily direct (Addinsall et al., 2017). As tourism continues to grow there is an
opportunity in Aotearoa New Zealand to link agroecology and agritourism by providing a deeper
interaction between tourists and sustainably managed agroecosystems. Agroecology tourism has
the potential to provide additional farm uses to sustain dual, and interdependent, conservation
and economic goals (Addinsall et al., 2017; Wezel & Jauneau, 2011). Also, agritourism can add
another level of interaction between the tourist and the land by providing education on both
the cultural history of land use and both traditional and modern agricultural conservation practi-
ces. The application of GIS as a decision support tool is vital to the explanation, and thus under-
standing, of the opportunities available to land managers to promote agroecology and
agritourism as an integral part of a sustainable rural economy.

GIS as a decision support tool for integrating farming practices and sustainable tourism
In the process of managing M
aori land, inclusiveness is important, as most land has multiple
owners and the land is managed through a legal entity, usually a trust (Maori Land Court – Te
Kooti Whenua Maori, 2018). When trustees are considering changes to land management it is
imperative that community members are consulted and included as full and equal partners in all
decision processes. Use of maps, created through a GIS, is an established way of visually commu-
nicating such spatially underpinned initiatives in a decision support context (Longley, Goodchild,
Maguire, & Rhind, 2015). The M
aori concept of kaitiaki or guardianship of land and resources can
also be incorporated into resource management through the use of GIS and can help to illus-
trate, establish and consolidate land-based links with tipuna (ancestors) and turangawaewae (a
place of belonging) (Pacey, 2005). Combining traditional knowledge and GIS, if achieved sensi-
tively, being mindful of culture, security and property rights, gives the advantage of capturing
and storing cultural and traditional values and concepts, along with geographic data (Landcare
Research, New Zealand, Ltd., 2013). Used in this way and at this level, management of the GIS
requires intimate community participation, according to the now well-established principles of
public participation GIS (Weiner, Harris, & Craig, 2002). An example of such an implementation in
Aotearoa New Zealand was reported on by Harmsworth, Park, and Walker (2005), who describe
an iwi (tribe)-led GIS project founded on local participation, in Motueka, Nelson.
Agritourism development in the context of agroecology can be a complex process to ensure
needs and priorities of stakeholders are handled equitably and effectively while fostering sustain-
able agricultural management (Addinsall et al., 2017). Use of a GIS at the centre of planning and
design is a valuable tool to identify opportunities for appropriate tourism development to aid in
decision making (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; McAdam, 1999). One use of a GIS in agritourism
development is in infrastructure design (Boers & Cottrell, 2007), or more broadly in a geodesign
framework, which is a process to design changes to the geography of a particular area
(Goodchild, 2010; Steinitz 2012). Geodesign is a four-way collaboration between geographic
4 A. MOORE ET AL.

scientists, information technologies, designers (in this case, agroecologists with a botanically-led
design) and importantly, “the people of the place” (Steinitz, 2012).

Aims
The capabilities of spatial analysis, one of the key functions of GIS, were investigated in this
research within a geodesign framework, to examine aspects of tourist visitor access to, and
expected experience of, a M
aori trust farm in the Te Wai Pounamu South Island of Aotearoa
New Zealand. Specifically, spatial cost-path analysis (Chang, 2015) was used to identify the best-
suited route for a visitor’s path (to access different amenities, such as coastal views, and enjoy
the farm’s environment and scenery), along with strategically located information platforms to
explain the history of, and research about, use of native plants as sources of animal medicinal
value by M
aori. As necessary background to the spatial analysis, planting schemes for the farm
have been suggested, through planning (Johnson, 2015) and empirical modelling processes
(Moore et al., 2016). These schemes resulted in implied path and information platform locations
that could take in the variety of different recommended planting areas and the amenity of
the location.
It is possible to calculate such a path using a GIS with relevant data. Most of the required
data can be calculated from a ground surface model (or Digital Elevation Model – DEM). The
important factors to include when calculating a path through the farm are slope which implies
difficulty of traversing, and views. In other words, visitors to the farm would enjoy the experience
more if they could follow a path that avoided steep slopes but afforded good views. Slope can
be calculated from the DEM, as can the area seen from any point on the DEM (i.e. calculating its
“viewshed”). Using the GIS, we can assign high “costs” (a form of weighting) to farm areas with
steep slopes and limited views. Then it is possible to calculate an optimal path that favours gen-
tle or no slopes whilst commanding views of large areas (with amount of land seen as a factor,
rather than subjective aspects of views, such as aesthetic beauty.

Materials and Methods

Te Kaio farm, Banks Peninsula, Aotearoa New Zealand
Geographic and historical description
Te P
ataka o R
akaihautu
(also known as Banks Peninsula), covers an area of approximately
1000 km2 on the east coast of the Te Wai Pounamu South Island of Aotearoa New Zealand. The
land is of volcanic origin and rises steadily from sea level to a height of 919 m at the summit of
Mt Herbert. Te Kaio (Figure 1) is a 449 ha sheep and beef farm located in the southern bays of
the peninsula, rising from sea level to just over 320 m. The farm is lightly stocked, currently car-
rying 800 cross-bred ewes and 60 cattle. During the last 20 years Te Kaio has had few chemical
inputs and is progressing towards organic certification.
The farm was gifted to the people of Wairewa by the owner Jim Wright following his death
in 2006. He wished to leave the land to people he believed would care for it and not intensify
the management. In line with the aspirations of many M
aori land owners, the current farm trust
wishes that Te Kaio become a more biodiverse and eco-friendly farm, but also generate an eco-
nomic return. Ideally the farm should provide a source of sustenance (meat, vegetables and fruit)
for local consumption and profit-generating sales, and cultural opportunities, for example the
finding of food (the practice of Mahinga kai) and practice of traditional medicine (Rongo
a). Given
the public interest in these practices, agritourism may provide an option for additional income,
particularly if the farm is managed according to agroecological principles.
Te Kaio is a diverse environment. There are stands of regenerating forest and shrubland inter-
mingled with very badly eroded slopes that have been cleared of their native vegetation cover.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 5

Figure 1. Location map of Te Kaio Farm (Moore et al., 2016).

The farm is bounded by two creeks which are largely protected by woody vegetation and has
two major and two smaller internal waterways. Te Kaio (Tumbledown Bay) and Makara (Magnet
Bay) are significant sites of early settlement that are also important with respect to Mahinga kai.
Other than three embayments (also including Murray’s Mistake), the land falls steeply to the sea
with a number of eroding cliffs. A mapping and land stability classification exercise conducted in
2012 identified that just over half the farm area was unstable and around a further sixth of the
farm area was moderately stable (Johnson, 2012).

Planned agroecology on Te Kaio

Agroecology, integrating ecological, social and agricultural aspects of land management provides
an excellent framework for the management of Te Kaio with a particular focus on Mahinga kai
and Rongo
a (Altieri, 2002; Altieri, Funes-Monzote, & Petersen, 2012; De Schutter, 2010; Garı,
2000; Hathaway, 2016; Kremen, Iles, & Bacon, 2012). Farming according to the principles of agro-
ecology means sustainably managing the land, water and soil, whilst sustaining the tangata
whenua (people of the land). Thus, the farm must function to generate income in order to sus-
tain itself, while also providing a staple base to feed local community members. To safeguard
the soil base, some areas of the farm must be retired from productive use in order to regener-
ate and other areas must be planted. The choice of what and where to plant can be guided by
the trustees’ objectives of providing opportunities for cultural expression, particularly with
respect to Mahinga kai and Rongo
a. Mahinga kai is a cornerstone of culture and, as noted
above, an abundance of food is important for the survival of the people and for manaakitanga
or hospitality.
6 A. MOORE ET AL.

Figure 2. Suggested planting options for Te Kaio Farm (adapted from Johnson, 2015).

A basic tenet of Rongo
a is that plants are part of the landscape and their medicinal properties
relate to the environment in which they grow. Research into the chemistry of m
anuka
(Leptospermum scoparium) trees across Aotearoa New Zealand, for example, supports this view
(Maddocks-Jennings, Wilkinson, Shillington, & Cavanagh, 2005; Perry et al., 1997; Porter & Wilkins,
1998). In order to adhere to this principle and to maintain a good conservation ethic, planning
for plantings on Te Kaio was restricted to species that are found growing naturally on Te P
ataka
o R
akaihautu

Banks Peninsula. In addition to this condition, all selected plants must be non-toxic,
withstand browsing by stock, and regenerate within a reasonable time frame.
To help plan the conversion of the farm, and to create an agroecosystem that reflects agroe-
cology principles, the farm land was divided into ten classes (Johnson, 2015; Figure 2). This sug-
gested plan for Te Kaio will require considerable expenditure and will not initially produce a
large income (see Table 1, to be consulted in conjunction with Figure 2). However, this is part of
a longer term vision for the property, which is not expected to generate immediate returns in
productivity and income.
Over time it is expected that the farm will sustain the Wairewa whanau (families) into the
future and, as the plantings and horticulture ventures mature and the land recovers, productivity
surpluses will be generated in terms of crop production. Moreover, it is anticipated that in the
short-term the development of an agritourism venture will provide a viable and sustainable
income stream for the whanau.

Tourism for Te Kaio

Agritourism has the potential to make a significant and more immediate contribution to the
income for the Te Kaio farm trust (Addinsall et al., 2017; Ciglovska, 2016; Pandey & Pandey,
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 7

Table 1. Planned land use and description (adapted from Johnson, 2015).
Name Description
Intensive horticultural Superb soil as needed to grow kumara (Ipomoea batatas),
kamokamo (Cucurbita pepo) and Taewa M
aori potatoes
(tutaekuri and kararo). Additional crops could include
brassicas and other leafy vegetables
Intensive pasture/lucerne Stable land with a history of successful lucerne production.
Alternatively mixed cereal/grass crops
Open grazing Stable land along ridge tops, for deep rooting grasses, clover,
plantain, chicory, other herbs. Agroforestry plantings and
browse bars for shelter of stock (sheep and cattle)
Agroforestry Steeper slopes above gullies chosen for Rongo
a species, kai
(food) species, fruit trees near horticultural boundary,
manuka and other species to support apiculture.
Agroforestry promotes soil stability and browsing by stock
Riparian planting Land close to creeks needs to be free of stock; riparian fencing
is necessary. Marshy area close to the sea could be turned
into wetland, sustaining plants for kai, Rongo
a, and
weaving. Kawakawa (Piper excelsum) and other Rongo
a
species planted further up the creeks
Urgent restoration (temporally retired areas Badly eroded and actively eroding areas to be fenced off and
planted in pioneer soil stabilising, nitrogen fixing species
(e.g. Tree Lucerne, Matagouri (Discaria toumatou)), building
bird habitat
Naturally regenerating bush The two East facing ridges on the boundaries of the farm
have large areas of bush remaining on them and should
be fenced and left to regenerate
Shrub and Tussock Plantings (and other Conservation areas) Access areas to embayments planted with pingao (Ficinia
spiralis), sensitive to grazing, dune binding, and wetland
species to stabilise creek meanders. A rahui or prohibition
on commercial seafood exploitation along the shoreline,
ensures conservation for local people

2011), particularly after plantings for Rongo
a, and land and water conservation efforts have been
implemented. Surfers and beach goers already travel along the Te Kaio boundary to access either
Makara or Te Kaio bays for recreation purposes. Given its coastal position, the farm has superb
southerly and westerly views and has the potential to develop several income generating tour-
ism ventures, one of which is agritourism. Visitors could be immersed in an agroecological farm
setting, observe traditional crops and gardens, medicinal plants, livestock and potentially other
aspects of traditional M
aori life. Utilising the existing buildings, gardens and land, the farm could
offer visitors a number of experiences from walking trails, interaction with the garden and ani-
mals, and cultural information. For example, at Makara a small changing shed, shelter and com-
posting toilet could be provided, with the design complementing the environment, utilising local
materials and located well back so as not to disturb birds and seals on the beach.
Other possible initiatives are the renovation and conversion of sheds (buildings in Figure 1)
into a small local museum, since there is available adjacent parking space and road access.
Another possible development could be the conversion of the old woolshed into a cafe com-
bined with the development of a working farm garden using traditional gardening tools. As well
as supplying farm garden produce to eat and buy, the cafe could feature interactive displays of
the Te Kaio story. A short walk from the cafe would reward the visitor with a superb view to the
south west. There is already a coastal walking track on Te P
ataka o R
akaihautu
Banks Peninsula
that attracts many local and international visitors (www.bankstrack.co.nz). Hence, it would seem
logical to develop a walking path on Te Kaio. To this end, an optimal walking path that enables
safe tourist access must be found (with trustee backing), coupled with sign posts and informa-
tion platforms to inform the community and visitors about the traditional crops and other plant-
ings. The least cost (easiest to traverse and most rewarding) route will utilise existing
infrastructure and minimise development in sensitive areas, while maximising the visitor/tourist
experience throughout the farm.
8 A. MOORE ET AL.

GIS application: spatial data used and analysis

Application of GIS to agriculture and agritourism
The application of GIS (specifically the analysis and mapmaking functions of GIS) to farming
activity provides stakeholders with valuable decision-support capability. GIS use is well estab-
lished in the agriculture production process throughout the world. The technology has been
used to help farmers to increase production, manage their land more efficiently, reduce costs,
increase profit margins, and mitigate the effect of farm-related environmental disasters (Pierce &
Clay, 2007; Wilson, 1999). In a related field, Cassel (2007) reports on the use of GIS in precision
agriculture, modelling soil properties in cases where crop productivity is compromised by exces-
sive salinity.

Spatial analysis
Spatial analysis adds value to geographic data, turning raw spatial data into information to sup-
port decision-making through, for example, transformative processes as simple as combining two
or more datasets through overlay (Longley et al., 2015). Wrapped around these conventional
uses of the technology, the approach used in this research adopts an intrinsically geodesign
workflow (“the process of changing geography by design”, Steinitz, 2012, p. ix) in implementing
most of the methods. Geodesign is an iterative process through which a method with specific
parameters is tested, and if it does not work, an alternative is tested to see what difference it
makes. In the end, one model is selected that best conforms to a preset criterion or set of crite-
ria, typically set by a group of decision makers. For example, geodesign has informed the plan-
ning of wildlife corridors in the Sonoran desert (Arizona and California), with a proposed corridor
rendered in a 3D environment and enhanced with vegetation models (Perkl, 2012, 2016).

Modelled Agroecology on Te Kaio

In the absence of expert advice it is difficult to know precisely where to plant species for best
growth success. To address this need, a GIS-based toolbox was developed using multi-criteria
analysis of terrain and proximity as well as local botanical knowledge to indicate optimal areas of
growth for traditional medicinal plants (Moore et al., 2016). Seven species were modelled in the
initial study, Totara (Podocarpus totara), Harakeke (Phormium tenax), M
apou (Myrsine australis),
Kawakawa (Piper excelsum), Ti ko
uka (Cordyline australis), Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) and
Kahikatea (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides). The resulting map shows where the seven species could be
successfully planted on Te Kaio (Figure 3).
If Rongo
a species are routinely planted on farms, not only will the land and stock benefit, but
communities have the opportunity to practice Rongo
a, to pass on the knowledge and to train
practitioners in the art of harvesting, preparing and administering traditional medicines.

Data
Geographical information system-based spatial analysis was used to aid the planning and visitor
access process on Te Kaio farm. Figure 4 is a high-level schematic of the data and methods used
for this purpose.
The analysis activities are largely determined by the available spatial databases, which
together form the basis of the application’s data storage, query, retrieval and management com-
ponents (Gu €ting, 1994; Zeiler, 2010). Initially a geodatabase was created using ArcGIS software to
store all spatial data relating to Te Kaio farm. The constituent data included a collection of fea-
ture datasets, feature classes, tables and raster grids that would serve as the foundation for all
subsequent analysis and mapmaking activities used to create a geodesign-focused approach to
farm development planning.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 9

Figure 3. Suggested planting scheme for Rongo
a R
akau (Moore et al., 2016).

Figure 4. High-level schematic of the project workflow.

The initial spatial data for this project were surveyed on-site in 2011 and partitioned into vari-
ous thematic layers, including roads, buildings, and elevations (also tracks, fences, powerlines,
poles and tree shelter belts were included) in the form of points, polylines and polygons, initially
in Computer Aided Design (CAD) format (.dwg and .dxf). These survey data were subsequently
converted into Esri feature classes in the ArcGIS geodatabase. Out of the available data, the high
spatial resolution DEM (1 m) of the farm site provided the basis for the majority of spatial
analysis in the project.
10 A. MOORE ET AL.

Raster analysis for visitor path and information platform siting

As noted above, the project applied a geodesign approach to spatial cost-path analysis to define
public access paths across the farm, with slope, visibility and distance to gully-bottom criteria as
inputs. The major checking criterion for the paths generated is diversity of medicinal plant spe-
cies visible from the path, as generated in an earlier phase of the project. Overlay analysis was
then used to identify locations for well-spaced information platforms, located on sites of suffi-
cient flat or low slope area relative to visibility and plant species diversity. Figure 5 is the process
flow diagram for this stage of the analysis process.
The extent of the analysis area was defined through a watershed calculation of all contiguous
pixels that would drain water into Murray’s Mistake Beach, one of the coastal bays on the farm
site (Figure 3). This was applied to a version of the DEM that had been hydrologically corrected
for pits. The watershed is a recognised unit area in hydrological analysis (Montgomery, Grant, &
Sullivan, 1995; Tinker et al., 1998).

Identification of walking paths on the farm. The first phase of the analysis focused on the
identification of the walking path. This required the creation of three datasets representing fac-
tors affecting the location of the path, namely distance from the gully-bottom, slope and visibil-
ity. The gully-bottom itself was defined from the set of “streams” draining into Murray’s Mistake

Figure 5. Process-flow diagram of path and information platform siting using GIS.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 11

(calculated hydrologically from the DEM), with the two major gullies isolated as the basis for the
two halves of the planned circular path. The route was planned to start on the top (upslope)
road (Figure 1), pass down one gully to the coast at Murray’s Mistake, and then return to the
other upslope road via the second gully. The two gully bottom lines were processed separately
for the subsequent Euclidean distance calculation, and the resulting distance rasters were
inverse-weighted in order to model avoidance of the gully bottom, which is liable to be boggy
and hard-going for visitors.
Viewsheds (Chang, 2015; Lee & Stucky, 1998) were calculated throughout the study area to
ascertain locations with higher visual impact value and scene qualities for the route and the
information platform locations. Visibility fields were created by first generating a lattice of points
with 100 m separation, retaining the points that fell within the study area extent. These points
were then assessed for visibility, with each cell coded for the number of points that could be
seen from it. The cells with the greatest number of visible points were assumed to have the
greatest visibility across the area of the farm. The slope raster of the farm was used for the next
stage. The flatter the slopes, the higher the suitability for walkers of differing fitness levels, and
for the location of visitor infrastructure (information boards, rest and shelter spots).
For Least Cost Path Analysis (LCPA) (Chang, 2015; Lee & Stucky, 1998; Rees, 2004), a cost surface,
cost distance raster and cost path need to be defined. The cost surface for each farm gully was cal-
culated by adding the weighted slope, visibility and distance to gully raster layers. The definition
of weightings was an iterative process in line with the general overarching geodesign approach
(Steinitz, 2012). Several combinations of weighting parameters were used to derive a path that
passed through a high diversity of medicinal plant species from the first phase of the research. The
weightings used on the three input rasters to the cost surface ranged up to 75 for the gully dis-
tance, 10 for slope, and 10 for visibility. An inverse weighting approach was applied to the latter
since the highest visibility was assumed to have the least cost. This effectively identified different
high cost areas represented by a combination of difficult terrain, exposed ridges and low visibility.
The cost distance raster was calculated from the cost surface relative to a point on the shore at
Murray’s Mistake. Two separate cost path operations were then undertaken with this cost distance
raster and a point where the top road crosses one of the two main gullies. The cost path operation
was repeated for a similar point in the other gully. The result was two paths from the access road
to the coastal location, each following their own gully to make an overall circular walking path.

Identification of visitor information platforms. The second phase of the visitor access analysis
focused on the selection of three sites for information platforms (see Figure 5 for this process).
The platforms had to be proximal to the paths derived in the previous stage. Accordingly, an
area bounded by a buffer zone 50 m either side of the path was calculated for platform place-
ment. Further, the platforms had to be on flat or gently sloping land. For this, the slope raster
was reclassified to isolate pixels of 2.5 degrees slope or less. The path buffer and gentle slope
rasters then were multiplicatively overlaid to isolate the areas common to both criteria.
In order to determine the largest suitable areas within the study area, contiguous pixels were
grouped together and those groups greater than 100 pixels (100 m2) were isolated. As a criterion
for selecting the best areas for the information platforms, a view shed from each of the candidate
areas was calculated and the one with the largest view area was chosen. Proximity to a variety of
medicinal plant species was also a consideration in the choice of information platform sites. For this
aspect, each modelled plant species within 5 and 10 m of the identified path was reported by area.

Results
The application of the various spatial analysis techniques driven by the concept of geodesign
resulted in the map shown in Figure 6. As suggested in the previous section, the map shows two
12 A. MOORE ET AL.

walking paths running down from Point 1 at the top of the valley to the coastal path at Murray’s
Mistake and then up the valley to Point 2 on the road (the walking loop would be completed by fol-
lowing the road back to Point 1). Path 1 covers a distance of approximately 1.65 km and Path 2 is
2.03 km long. The map further shows three locations for information platforms that might be sited
at vantage points along the paths to give maximum visibility of the terrain of the farm, yet avoid
exposed ridge lines and steep areas. Importantly, the map shows that the identified paths pass
through the modelled suitable planting areas of M
aori medicinal plants. Table 2 shows that even
within a relatively generous 5 m buffer of the paths, all the modelled species are encountered.
The path from the boundary of the farm down to Murrays Mistake beach and back up to the
farm boundary would have walkers leaving the farm boundary and descending to a private
beach following the eastern arm of the creek. The path passes above regenerating native bush
and alongside developing agroforestry blocks, which are being planted with native trees and
shrubs that will provide traditional food, medicine, dyes, oils, and bark. The path descends to the
creek and crosses to the eastern bank. The bridge at the crossing point could be constructed
locally, reflecting traditional methods and stories. Where the bridge crosses the creek there is a
large open area which could be planted in Totara, as much of the peninsula was once clothed in
Totara, and old Totara fence posts can still be found on Te Kaio.
The plantings would reflect the natural history of the farm and provide a valuable resource in
the future as Totara wood is highly valued for traditional carving. Stock will also use this bridge
to cross from one side of the farm to the other, so an alternative rope bridge might also be pro-
vided for the adventurous. The path now passes through large areas of riparian planting which
is protecting the waterway. The riparian margins here are planted with Rongo
a R
akau (plants
that are used for traditional medicine). Tourists can sample the plants, the community can har-
vest them for their own use, and livestock can access them for self-medication.

Figure 6. Final map showing identified walking paths and information platforms with medicinal plant map for reference.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 13

Table 2. Observable plant species along both walking paths.

Plant length along Plant area within 5 m Plant area within 10 m Plant area within 20 m
path (m) of path (m2) of path (m2) of path (m2)
Medicinal plants n Mean Tot n Mean Tot n Mean Tot n Mean Tot
Harakeke 19 11.0 209.9 36 58.6 2108.4 55 79.2 4356.3 91 95.5 8688.5
Kahikatea 18 42.0 755.7 33 231.4 7636.3 48 322.2 15467.5 97 315.3 30582.4
Kawakawa 7 10.3 72.0 12 56.5 678.6 22 59.0 1297.9 34 65.3 2221.9
Manuka 24 10.4 250.1 45 54.7 2462.8 63 81.7 5148.4 103 104.7 10779.1
Mapou or Totara 45 30.1 1354.7 173 75.8 13105.3 279 92.7 25866.4 475 109.7 52117.3
Ti Kouka 9 7.9 71.4 28 26.6 745.6 50 27.4 1369.1 90 28.9 2599.4
Non-suitable 49 19.9 977.4 100 102.7 10272.8 151 137.2 20719.3 231 183.4 42366.9

The path passes above rocky hollows in which a number of native species have survived
including small areas of Kawakawa which reaches its southern growth limits in the peninsula
area. As the path approaches Murrays Mistake beach, it passes through the restored wetland
area overlooked by a number of local artworks. At Murrays Mistake there is a small memorial
cairn to those aboard the ship that was wrecked when the captain put in there many years ago
thinking he was going to Oashore whale fishery (Jacobsen, 1914).
Leaving the beach, the path ascends the ridge through more agroforestry plantings with stun-
ning views across the farm to the sea. As the walker nears the farm boundary, once again the
path drops down to the creek passing through further Rongo
a riparian plantings and an old
lime (Tilia sp.) tree often frequented by Kereru (New Zealand native pigeon, Hemiphaga novae-
seelandiae), as well as the planned farm museum.

Discussion
The visitor access phase of this research applied a geodesign approach to define a circular walk-
ing route on Te Kaio farm to support agritourism and short term income generation opportuni-
ties for the farm trust as well as members of the local Wairewa community. The walk was
complemented with information platforms providing a focal point for local knowledge under-
standing and dissemination to promote greater awareness of the M
aori medicinal plant species
being produced and cultivated on the farm. The iterative geodesign framework allowed the
walking path to meet the desired criteria of high visibility and high variety of the medicinal
plants encountered along its length as well as optimising viewsheds beyond the farm and ease
of access and walkability for people of most ages.
The implementation of a geodesign project as a part of a sustainable agritourism effort can
provide several primary socioeconomic and ecological benefits to farms. Agroecology is premised
on the idea that sustainability of rural farmlands requires a holistic farm system approach, which
includes socioeconomic sustainability (Dalgaard et al., 2003; Francis et al., 2003; Gliessman, 2015).
A healthy agroecosystem needs to be anchored in a healthy socioeconomic system. Sustainable
agritourism has the potential to provide benefits to both the agroecosystem health and to the
people who work the farms, who may need additional sources of income to keep the agroecosys-
tem healthy. Ensuring agritourism is sustainable requires adopting the key tenets of sustainable
tourism in general. These include the sustainable use of environmental and cultural resources;
respect for socio-cultural values and community; sustained socio-economic benefits to all stake-
holders (Addinsall et al., 2017); and applying these benefits to the context of the working farm.
Geodesign is especially well-suited to the objectives of this study. For example, early collab-
orative planning can identify areas with high cultural and/or ecological value shared by stake-
holders as well as areas where values may differ (Eikelboom & Janssen, 2015). A geodesign
framework can identify the placement of infrastructure (such as trails, kiosks, observation plat-
forms, etc.) that minimises negative impacts to sensitive areas from crowding or conflict, while
maximising positive impacts to visitor experience. Further, a GIS is valuable in helping with
14 A. MOORE ET AL.

sustainable tourism design from rapid assessments of high value, sensitive areas to infrastructure
placement designs that avoid these areas (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999).
On the basis of the Te Kaio experience, this procedure promises to be reproducible for other
farms and indeed could scale up to a smaller (e.g. expansive back country farm) scale with suit-
able data. The spatial analysis featured in this project is based, in the main, on freely available
data, or data that could be replaced by free data with not much compromise (a New Zealand-
specific benefit, though several countries have mature open spatial data policies, e.g. USA). An
example is the elevation data that is the basis for most of the analysis. The 1 m elevation field
survey data collected for this study could be replaced by an 8 m resolution dataset that is avail-
able through the national online LINZ Data Service, with an acceptable increase in coarseness
(especially for smaller scale scenarios). The analysis operations themselves are accessible through
FOSS (Free Open Source Software) GIS such as QGIS. Furthermore, the same GIS can be used to
capture instances (e.g. anecdotal evidence of where the best viewing sites are; notable instances
of plantings) of local knowledge (Hall, Moore, Knight, & Hankey, 2009), making for a more
rounded spatial data resource. To summarise, the accessibility and availability of data and soft-
ware justifies their use and fosters community projects such as this one. Although the geodesign
process has been relatively inexpensive as far as it went (the main costs were the farm contour
survey and time investment over the years), a cautionary note should be sounded. With the ben-
efits that come from a resulting well-designed agritourism programme grounded in solid stake-
holder engagement is the possibility of an expensive process with multiple iterations of
submissions and iterations of the model to accommodate change requests.
However, further work could yet be done in the visualisation of the results. Representation on
a conventional 2D map is effective, but a 3D virtual representation of the study area, the pro-
posed pathway and planted areas would convey more of what would actually be seen both in
reality and also in a virtual world. Such a combination of virtual reality and geographical model-
ling in a Virtual Geographic Environment (VGE – Gong & Lin, 2006) has produced VGEs that foster
spatial analysis (Lu, 2011) and social communication and networks (Virtual Social Environments –
VSE, Chen, Lin, Hu, He, & Zhang, 2013). These are all contexts that could easily be combined with
the current research scenario where the virtual world becomes entwined with the real world. In
addition, tailored vegetation models of the medicinal plants could add to a realistic experience.
Tang et al. (2011) report on the OntoPlant tool and its constituent module VisForest for virtual
vegetation modelling, rendering and growth at various spatial scales from the individual plants
to the landscape scale. Furthermore, Perkl (2016) explored coupling the geodesign framework
with an Automated Design Model (ADM), which allows planners to customise plantings for use in
wildlife corridors. This approach could be similarly applied to farm plantings along and near the
walking paths. Such a model also provides a rich three dimensional visualisation of the design to
convey more effectively what the design will look like when plantings reach maturity. For
example, plants such as Totara and Kahikatea can get very tall, a factor not addressed by GIS-
based viewshed analysis, but within the scope of virtual vegetation modelling.
To balance this discussion, the uncertainties that are associated with the data, local informa-
tion and knowledge used in this study should be acknowledged. Incompleteness of the dataset
has already been mentioned. The data present are subject to spatial and attribute uncertainty.
For example, the raster DEM is subject to a resolution that has the potential to affect the results
of the analysis operations performed on it (the effect that use of raster cells and cell size has on
the viewshed operation is well established – see, for example, Fisher, 1993). When basing an ana-
lysis procedure on the output of another analysis procedure, the propagation of error from one
to the other also needs to be explicitly modelled (Heuvelink, 1998). A key example of this relates
to the cost path for the walking route (the product of one analysis chain) relative to the mod-
elled locations of medicinal plants (the product of the analysis chain previous to that). It is cer-
tainly important to make these sources of uncertainty explicit, not least in a community-based
decision making environment. To make the uncertainty more explicit, ground-truthing the results
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 15

of the analysis (i.e. performing a site visit, directly relating the GIS-derived path to the actual
farm terrain to check viability) is a necessary next step for the layout of the walking path, relative
to the medicinal plantings as well as the spatial interaction between the two. Additional design
modelling to simulate what the landscape will look like in future years could also help to identify
any areas requiring ground-truthing or further analysis.

Conclusions
Agroecology is a sustainable approach that combines farm management with landscape ecology
and a socio-economic perspective. As such, it is a good fit for locally owned M
aori land, with
managers looking to support their communities whilst practicing agriculture in a culturally
responsive way. Tourism is a natural extension to this, providing an additional income source
from the many visitors to Aotearoa New Zealand who are interested in its cultural history and
ecological landscapes. Hence, there is public interest in access to a working farm (agritourism) to
learn about and observe traditional practices.
The planning of public farm access needs to maximise potential for an enjoyable and educa-
tional experience. Mapped (spatial) data of the farm is required to identify key areas that
enhance on-site experiences for tourists, such as good views, a non-strenuous path and exposure
to a variety of practices and tree species important to agroecology. This research uses GIS-based
spatial analysis in a geodesign framework to identify a path through the farm that maximises
experience of these key areas, punctuated by objectively placed information platforms to impart
background knowledge of what the tourist is seeing.
This is an example of a complex process, the linking of agritourism to agroecology, itself a
nascent practice. Local cultural values needed to be addressed on the way to achieving a posi-
tive environmental and economic impact, the latter boosted by tourism. The newly resurgent
process of geodesign, powered by GIS analysis and mapping, is a good fit to organisationally
and digitally manage such a complex scenario, promoting the required inclusiveness and com-
munity-led approach. As ideas were developed by the researchers they were discussed and dis-
sected with the farm management team on site. As the suggestions for an agroecologically
based farm management scheme including an agritourism element matured into a working farm
plan, they were presented, using the associated maps, to members of the Te Kaio board and
community, who were impressed with the results.
The map visualisation of the spatial analysis results effectively communicated the possible con-
sequences of change to decision makers in a more accessible and understandable way. This agroe-
cology-based plan for managing a traditionally run farm, informed by agritourism as well as
cultural values, has a unique set of requirements that are met by the flexible nature of GIS. The
study reinforces the acknowledged value of GIS to address local cultural and traditional values and
concepts through the combination of local knowledge and scientific data. For example, underpin-
ning the placement of tree species is multi-criteria analysis, which has been shown to be an effect-
ive way to model intangible local and botanical domain knowledge as well as associated data.
Coupled with GIS capability of digitally encoding the farm experience from the point of view of the
visiting tourist (what views they will see and the lie of the path they will walk along), this represents
the key contribution to sustainable tourism of an innately human-oriented form of agriculture.
The farm trustees have resolved to use the GIS output in future management plans.
Furthermore, there are plans to refine and reapply this approach to other similarly-managed and
agritourism-oriented farms elsewhere in Aotearoa New Zealand. However, in order to build a
more comprehensive decision support resource for Indigenous farm managers, other species
need to be modelled, and informed by a wider data set, principally soils data, that were not
available for this study. All other sources of uncertainty also need to be minimised, wherever
possible. The results of this research will be added to an ongoing initiative to create a
16 A. MOORE ET AL.

spatiotemporal data resource for agroecology data (Pagan, 2013). This time-stamped spatial data-
base has started to house baseline and agroecology monitoring data, e.g. biodiversity including
invertebrates, vegetation, birds; soil conditions including structure, chemistry; stream health
including habitat, chemistry; cultural recordings including Rongo
a, and community members;
and farm management including seasonal use, and stocking rate. Together with the approach
described in this paper, this information will both improve the veracity of farm management
whilst providing rewarding experiences for visiting tourists.

Note
1. This is the correct bilingual (M
aori and English) name.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Nga Pae o te Maramatanga and also to members of the Indigenous Agroecology Project Group, includ-
ing Hayden Hamilton, who performed part of the agroecology data collection in January-February 2013. We are
also grateful to the Te Kaio community and trustees, Robin Wybrow, Michael Fletcher and Environment Canterbury,
Iain Gover, Alan Mark, Roger May and Colin Muerk. Phil Rhodes, Tim Hastings and Riki Cambridge from the
University of Otago are thanked for their baseline data survey in 2011.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by Nga Pae o te Maramatanga under Grant Number 11RF02-BHUOT (finance and
studentships).

Notes on contributors
Antoni Moore is an associate professor in GIS at the School of Surveying, University of Otago (NZ). His research
interests span geovisualisation, cartography and spatial analysis.
Marion Johnson is a senior scientist with the Future Farming Centre, Lincoln (NZ). Her major research areas are
organics, agroecology, natural medicines and “shrewd farming” with a multicultural and interdisciplinary focus.
Jeremiah Gbolagun has a postgraduate diploma in GIS from the University of Otago where he completed a project
on GIS-based analysis of tourism access to Te Kaio farm, at the School of Surveying.

Aubrey Miller is a professional practice fellow in GIS at the School of Surveying, University of Otago (NZ). His
research interests include the application of spatial analysis to tourism and recreation.
Anneke Rombouts was a visiting researcher at the Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago, where she worked
on tourism aspects of Te Kaio farm.
Loes van der Ven was a visiting researcher at the Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago, where she worked
on tourism aspects of Te Kaio farm.
Janice Lord is an associate professor in plant evolutionary biology at the Department of Botany, University of
Otago (NZ). She has research interests in plant reproductive strategies and the traditional use of plants by M
aori.
Sam Coutts graduated in GIS from the University of Otago where he completed a project on GIS-based analysis of
Rongo
a plantings at Te Kaio farm, at the School of Surveying.
Mariana Pagan graduated in surveying from the University of Otago where she completed a project on combining
GIS technology and traditional M
aori knowledge at Te Kaio farm.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 17

Brent Hall is former Professor and Dean of the National School of Surveying at the University of Otago and is cur-
rently Director of Education and Research at Esri Canada. His research interests include spatial decision support
with a focus on use of the web for community collaboration.

References
Addinsall, C., Glencross, K., Scherrer, P., Weiler, B., & Nichols, D. (2015). Agroecology and sustainable rural liveli-
hoods: A conceptual framework to guide development projects in the Pacific Islands. Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems, 39, 691–723. doi:10.1080/21683565.2015.1017785
Addinsall, C., Weiler, B., Scherrer, P., & Glencross, K. (2017). Agroecological tourism: Bridging conservation, food
security and tourism goals to enhance smallholders’ livelihoods on South Pentecost, Vanuatu. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 25, 1100–1116. doi:10.1080/09669582.2016.1254221
Altieri, M.A. (1995). Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Altieri, M.A. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
74(1–3), 19–31. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00028-6
Altieri, M.A. (2002). Agroecology: The science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal
environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 93(1–3), 1–24. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00085-3
Altieri, M.A., Funes-Monzote, F. R., Petersen, P (2012). Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder
farmers: Contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32(1), 1–13.
Altieri, M.A. & Nicholls, C. (2012). Agroecology scaling up for food sovereignty and resiliency. In E. Lichtfouse (Ed.),
Sustainable Agriculture Reviews Vol. 11 (pp. 1–29), Springer: Dordrecht. doi:10.007/978-94-007-5449-2-1
Bahaire, T., & Elliott-White, M. (1999). The application of geographical information systems (GIS) in sustainable tour-
ism planning: A review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7, 159–174. doi:10.1080/09669589908667333
Blesh, J. & Wolf, S. (2014). Transitions to agroecological farming systems in the Mississippi River Basin: Toward an
integrated sociological analysis. Agriculture and Human Values, 31, 621–635
Boers, B., & Cottrell, S. (2007). Sustainable tourism infrastructure planning: A GIS-supported approach. Tourism
Geographies, 9, 1–21. doi:10.1080/14616680601092824
Busby, G., & Rendle, S. (2000). The transition from tourism on farms to farm tourism. Tourism Management, 21,
635–642.
Cassel, S.F. (2007). Soil salinity mapping using ArcGIS. In F.J. Pierce & D. Clay (Eds.), GIS applications in agriculture
(pp.141–162). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Chang, K.-T. (2015). Introduction to geographic information systems (8th ed.). Columbus, OH: McGraw Hill Higher
Education.
Chen, M., Lin, H., Hu, M., He, L., & Zhang, C. (2013). Real geographic-scenario-based virtual social environments:
Integrating geography with social research. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, 40, 1103–1121.
Ciglovska, B. (2016). Agroecology and agrotourism as a new cash cow for the farmers after the crisis: The case of
Fyrom Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 17(1), 276–283.
Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N.J., & Porter, J.R. (2003). Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agriculture, Ecosystems
& Environment, 100, 39–51. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00152-X.
De Schutter, O. (2010). Report submitted by the special rapporteur on the right to food (A/HRC/16/49). United Nations
General Assembly Human Rights Council Sixteenth session. New York: United Nations.
Eikelboom, T. & Janssen, R. (2015). Comparison geodesign tools to communicate stakeholder values. Group Decision
and Negotiation, 24(6), 1065–1087. doi:10.1007/s10726-015-9429-7.
Fisher, P.F. (1993). Algorithm and implementation uncertainty in viewshed analysis. International Journal of
Geographical Information Systems, 7, 331–347.
Flanigan, S., Blackstock, K., & Hunter, C. (2014). Agritourism from the perspective of providers and visitors: A
typology-based study. Tourism Management, 40, 394–405. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.004.
Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T.A., Creamer, N., Harwood, R., … Poincelot, R. (2003). Agroecology:
The ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22, 99–118.
Garı, JA. (2001). Biodiversity and Indigenous Agroecology in Amazonia. Etnoecologica, 5(7), 21–37.
Gliessman, S.R. (2015). Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis.
Goodchild, M. (2010). Towards geodesign: Repurposing cartography and GIS? Cartographic Perspectives, 66, 7–22.
Gong, J., & Lin, H. (2006). Collaborative virtual geographic environment. In S. Balram & S. Dragicevic (Eds.),
Collaborative geographic information systems (pp. 186–207). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
G€uting, R.H. (1994). An introduction to spatial database systems. VLDB Journal, 3, 357–399.
Hall, GB, Moore, A, Knight, P and Hankey, N. (2009). The extraction and utilization of local and scientific geospatial
knowledge within the Bluff Oyster Fishery, New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6),
2055–2070.
18 A. MOORE ET AL.

Hansen, H.C. (1939) Ecology in agriculture. Ecology, 20(2), 111–117.

Harmsworth, G., Park, M., & Walker, D. (2005). Report on the development and use of GIS for iwi and hapu: Motueka
case study, Aotearoa-New Zealand. Palmersto North, NZ: Landcare Research NZ Ltd / Manaaki Whenua.
Hathaway, M. (2016). Agroecology and permaculture: Addressing key ecological problems by rethinking and
redesigning agricultural systems. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(2), 239–250.
Heuvelink, G. B. M. (1998). Error propagation in environmental modelling with GIS. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Isaac, W. (2011). Maori Land Today. Retrieved from maorilandcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/MLC-
2011-May-Judges-Corner-Isaac-CJ.pdf.
Jacobsen, H.C. (1914). Tales of Banks Peninsula Outside the harbour. In Akaroa Mail (Akaroa). Akaroa, NZ: Akaroa
Mail Office.
Johnson, M. (2012). Adapting the principles of Te Rongoa
into ecologically and culturally sustainable farm practice
(Report). University of Auckland: Nga Pae o te Maramatanga. Retrived from http://www.maramatanga.co.nz/
project/adapting-principles-rongoa
Johnson, M. (2015). Te Kaio, agroecology, agroforestry and tourism. In M. Johnson & C. Perley (Eds.), Indigenous
agroecology Te Ahuwhenua Take-take (pp. 302–332). Nga Pae o te Maramatanga: University of Auckland.
Johnson, M., Ataria, J., Champeau, O., Hudson, M., Lord, J., Wehi, P., … Moore, A. (2013). Indigenous Agroecology.
Poster session presented at the VII Southern Connection Congress, Dunedin, NZ.
Kingi, T. (2000). Culture, Ethnicity and Organisational Performance: Issues in Evaluating Ma
ori Authorities (Discussion
Pap. 147, pp. 176–183). Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU). Lincoln, NZ: Lincoln University
Kremen, C., A. Iles, & Bacon, C. (2012). Diversified farming systems: An agroecological, systems-based alternative to
modern industrial agriculture. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 44. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05103-170444
Landcare Research, New Zealand, Ltd. (2013). Methods for Recording Ma
ori Values on GIS. Retrieved from http://
www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/living/indigenous-knowledge/land-use/recording-values
Lee, J., & Stucky, D. (1998). On applying viewshed analysis for determining least-cost paths on Digital Elevation
Models. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 12, 891–905. doi:10.1080/136588198241554
Longley, P. A., Goodchild, M. F., Maguire, D. J., & Rhind, D. W. (2015). Geographic information systems and science
(4th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Lovell, S. T., DeSantis, S., Nathan, C. A., Olson, M. B., Mendez, V. E., Kominami, H. C., & Morris, W. B. (2010).
Integrating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in Vermont: An evolving framework to evaluate the
design of agroecosystems. Agricultural Systems, 103, 327–341.
Lu, G. N. (2011). Geographic analysis-oriented virtual geographic environment: Framework, structure and functions.
Science China-Earth Sciences, 54, 733–743.
Maddocks-Jennings, W., Wilkinson, J. M., Shillington, D., & Cavanagh, H. (2005). A fresh look at manuka and kanuka
essential oils from New Zealand. International Journal of Aromatherapy, 15, 141–146.
MBIE (2017). New Zealand tourism forecasts 2017–2023. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation &
Employment.
MBIE. (2018). Key tourism statistics. New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. Retrieved from
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/tourism/documents-image-library/key-tourism-statistics.
pdf
McAdam, D. (1999). The value and scope of geographical information systems in tourism management. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 7, 77–92. doi: 10.1080/09669589908667327
Maori Land Court – Te Kooti Whenua Maori. (2018) Trusts and incorporations. Retrieved from https://maorilandcourt.
govt.nz/your-maori-land/trusts-and-incorporations/.
Montgomery, D. R., Grant, G. E., & Sullivan, K. (1995). Watershed analysis as a framework for implementing ecosystem
management1. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 31, 369–386. doi:10.1111/j.1752-
1688.1995.tb04026.x
Moore, A., Johnson, M., Lord, J., Coutts, S., Pagan, M., Gbolagun, J., & Hall, G.B. 2016. Applying spatial analysis to
the agroecology-led management of an indigenous farm in New Zealand. Ecological Informatics, 31, 49–58.
Pacey, H. A. (2005). The Benefits and Barriers to GIS for Ma
ori (Unpublished master of Indigenous Planning and
Development thesis). Lincoln University, Christchurch.
Pagan, M. (2013). Taiwhenua and the Collaboration of GIS Technology and Traditional Ma
ori Knowledge: Establishing
a Space-Time Dataset as the basis for assessing future spatial changes in Indigenous Agroecology practice (Report).
University of Auckland: Nga Pae o te Maramatanga.
Pandey H. & Pandey P. R. (2011). Socio-economic development through Agro-tourism: An economic study of
Bhaktapur, Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 12, 59–66.
Perkl, R. (2012). Geodesign and Wildlife Corridors. ArcNews, (Summer).
Perkl, R. (2016). Geodesigning landscape linkages: Coupling GIS with wildlife corridor design in conservation
planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 156, 44–58.
Pierce, F.J. & Clay, D. (Eds.). (2007). GIS applications in agriculture. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 19

Perry, N. B., Brennan, N. J., Van Klink, J. W., Harris, W., Douglas, M. H., McGimpsey, J. A., … Anderson, R. E. (1997).
Essential oils from New Zealand manuka and kanuka: Chemotaxonomy of Leptospermum. Phytochemistry, 44,
1485–1494.
Phillip, S., Hunter, C., & Blackstock, K. (2010). A typology for defining agritourism. Tourism Management, 31,
751–758. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.001.
Porter, N. G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1998). Chemical, physical and antimicrobial properties of essential oils of
Leptospermum scoparium and Kunzea ericoides. Phytochemistry, 50, 407–415.
Rees, W. G. (2004). Least-cost paths in mountainous terrain. Computers and Geosciences, 30, 203–209.
Statistics New Zealand. (2009). Measuring New Zealand’s progress using a sustainable development approach: 2008.
Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.
Statistics New Zealand. (2017, November). International Visitor Survey. New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation
& Enterprise. Activity data available from Statistics New Zealand. Retrieved from http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/
wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode¼TABLECODE7576
Steinitz, C. (2012). A framework for geodesign. Redlands, CA: Esri Press.
Tang, L., Chen, C., Zou, J., Lin, Y., Lin, D., & Li, J. (2011). OntoPlant: an Integrated Virtual Plant Software Package for
Different Scale Applications. In Proceedings International Conference on Spatial Data Mining and Geographical
Knowledge Services (ICSDM 2011) (pp. 308–314). Fuzhou, China: IEEE.
Tinker, D. B., Resor, C. A. C., Beauvais, G. P., Kipfmueller, K. F., Fernandes, C. I., & Baker, W. L. (1998). Watershed
analysis of forest fragmentation by clearcuts and roads in a Wyoming forest. Landscape Ecology, 13, 149–165.
doi:10.1023/A:1007919023983
Weiner, D., Harris, T.M., & Craig, W.J. (2002). Community participation and geographic information systems. In W.J.
Craig, T.M. Harris, & D. Weiner. (Eds.), Community participation and geographic information systems (pp. 3–16).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Wezel, A. & Jauneau, J-. (2011). Agroecology – interpretations, approaches and their links to nature conservation,
rural development and ecotourism. In B. Campbell & S. Lo pez Ortız (Eds.), Integrating agriculture, conservation
and ecotourism: Examples from the field. Issues in Agroecology – Present status and future prospectus (Vol. 1,
pp. 1–25). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Dore, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., & David, C. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a
practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(4), 503–515.
Wilson, J.P. (1999). Local, national, and global applications of GIS in agriculture. In P.A. Longley, M.F. Goodchild, D.J.
Maguire, & D.W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical information systems: Management issues and applications
(pp. 981–998). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Zeiler, M. (2010). Modeling our world: the ESRI guide to geodatabase concepts (2nd ed.). Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.