Systems Design Lab · Lesson 3: Resources & Sustainability

Year 9–10 Social Studies. Students design the economic and environmental systems for their society — food, energy, housing — and what kaitiakitanga asks of a society that reads it as economics.

Systems Design Lab · Lesson 3

Lab build: make the resource flows balance

Ākonga put numbers on what their society consumes and replenishes, find where it does not balance, and change one rule to close the gap.

  • Systems Lab move: Quantified resource flow with a named shortfall
  • Evidence it produces: A before/after flow showing the shortfall and the single rule change that addressed it
Other teaching approach: Civics Deliberation Seminar →
← Back to Lesson 2

Lesson 3: Resources & Sustainability

Every society must answer the most fundamental question of all: how do we get what we need to live? Today students examine different economic models, read kaitiakitanga as economics without mistaking the reading for the practice, and complete the resource pillar of their Society Blueprint.

Whakatūwhera — Cultural Opening

In 2017, the Whanganui River became the first river in the world to be granted legal personhood. It is now a legal entity — like a company or a person — with rights that can be defended in court. This law came from the Māori concept that the river is an ancestor, a living entity, not a resource to be extracted. The iwi who fought for this change understand something that mainstream economics has been slow to learn: you cannot build a sustainable society by treating the natural world as a bottomless mine.

Kaitiakitanga — guardianship of the natural world — is not environmental policy, and it is not an economic theory either. But read as economics it carries a claim most models leave out: that the health of the land and the wealth of the people are the same question, not two that trade off.

"Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au." (Whanganui pepeha. Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 records it as expressing the inseparable connection between the iwi and hapū of Whanganui and the Whanganui River — a specific relationship, not a general saying about nature. Teach it as theirs.)

I am the river, the river is me. — Whanganui Māori proverb

Ngā Whāinga Ako — Learning Intentions

Students Will Know

  • Three models for managing resources (private ownership, commons, gift economy).
  • The "tragedy of the commons" and how societies have solved it.
  • What an economist notices when they read kaitiakitanga — and what that reading leaves out.

Students Will Demonstrate

  • By designing the resource system for their society (food, energy, shelter, water).
  • By identifying at least one sustainability mechanism in their design.
  • By presenting their complete Society Blueprint in a 3-minute pitch.
🪶 Mātauranga Māori — handoff required (unattributed general account). The cards below state kaitiakitanga, rāhui, mauri and utu as settled general definitions for Years 9–10. Practice varies between hapū and iwi, this page cites no source, and it has not been reviewed by anyone with authority to speak for it. Ask: is this an acceptable general account at this level; should “Maintaining mauri is the goal of kaitiakitanga” and “Reciprocity (Utu)” be attributed or narrowed to a named iwi account; and is hau correctly described here, given it names the essence of the gift that compels its return rather than the economy itself?

🌿 Kaitiakitanga — Reading Guardianship as Economics (15 mins)

Unpack the concept together before comparing economic models. Kaitiakitanga is not a resource management system; it is a relationship of responsibility that carries its own authority. What follows is what an economist notices when they read it — the reading is ours, the practice is not:

Rāhui

A restriction placed on gathering or fishing in an area, lifted when the conditions that prompted it have changed. A rāhui carries the authority of the hapū or iwi who place it — it is tikanga, not a management technique that can be borrowed. Read as economics, it treats restraint as a legitimate outcome rather than a cost to be minimised, which is the opposite starting assumption to models that treat continuous extraction as the default. Local meaning belongs to iwi: ask before teaching specifics.

Mauri

The life force of a place — when the mauri of a river or forest is diminished (by pollution, overharvest), it signals ecological harm. Maintaining mauri is the goal of kaitiakitanga.

Collective Responsibility

Resources are held on behalf of the iwi — including future generations. No individual can permanently "own" and deplete what belongs to all. This prevents the tragedy of the commons.

Reciprocity (Utu)

What you take, you must give back — in some form. Surplus was shared through gift economies (hau), building social bonds and ensuring no one went without while others had plenty.

Discussion: Sort these: fishing quotas, national parks, carbon trading, the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River) Act 2017. Which of them carries an authority that can place a restriction and lift it, and which only sets a number? Which one recognises a relationship rather than managing a stock? Only after sorting: which, if any, is something like kaitiakitanga — and what is still missing?

💰 Three Resource Models (15 mins)

1. Private Ownership (Market Economy)

Individuals own resources and trade them. Price signals allocate goods. Incentivises innovation and efficiency but can produce extreme inequality and environmental degradation.

Risk: Tragedy of the commons — individuals maximise their own gain, collectively depleting shared resources.

2. Commons Management

Resources are held collectively and managed by community agreement. Elinor Ostrom (Nobel Prize 2009) proved communities can successfully manage commons without privatisation or government control.

Examples: Swiss alpine grazing communities (700+ years), Japanese fishing cooperatives, Māori fisheries management.

3. Gift Economy / Redistribution

Surplus is given away rather than accumulated. Status comes from generosity (mana through giving), not hoarding. Social bonds — not prices — allocate goods. Requires trust and small community size.

Examples: reciprocal gift exchange in te ao Māori — see the handoff note above on whether hau is the right word for this, Pacific Island feasting economies, some contemporary "pay it forward" models.

🐟 Tragedy of the Commons — Fishing Simulation (15 mins)

Run this quick simulation to make the tragedy of the commons concrete and visceral.

Setup: Place 20 counters (fish) in the centre of a group of 5 students. Each round, every student secretly writes how many fish they will take (0–4). Then all reveal at once. The "lake" replenishes by doubling remaining fish — up to a maximum of 20 — each round.
Round 1 (no rules): Observe what happens. Do students deplete the lake? How many rounds before collapse?
Round 2 (group can negotiate): Give groups 2 minutes to agree on a rule before starting. What rule do they choose? Does it work?
Round 3 (enforced quota): Introduce a hard limit (max 2 fish per person per round). How does this feel? Is the lake more sustainable?
Debrief: None of these three rounds is a rāhui. What does a rāhui have that none of them has? (Someone with the authority to place it, and to lift it when the conditions that prompted it have changed — the rule is not the whole of it.) Then: what conditions make voluntary cooperation successful (small community, trust, shared identity, long-term relationships)? What conditions cause it to break down?

✍️ Society Blueprint — Resource Design (20 mins)

Complete Your Resource Pillar

Students finalize their blueprint resource section. They must address four core needs:

🌾 Food

How does your society grow, gather, or produce food? Who has access? How is surplus managed?

💧 Water & Energy

Is water a public right or private commodity? What energy sources does your society use? Who controls them?

🏠 Shelter

Does everyone have the right to housing? How is land allocated? Can individuals own land, or is it held collectively?

🌿 Environment

What is your society's relationship with the natural world? Does your society take responsibility for the land it lives on, and who holds that responsibility?

Numeric flow check (10 mins) — the "before" flow: Using the fishing simulation as your model, put real numbers on ONE resource in your own society. Fill in: (a) how much of it exists at the start — a number; (b) how much your population consumes per round — a number; (c) how much regenerates per round — a number or a rule (e.g. "doubles, up to a maximum of 20"); (d) run it forward 5 rounds on paper. Does it run out?
The "after" flow — close the gap: If your resource ran out before round 5, change exactly ONE rule (a harvest cap per person, a redistribution rule, a regeneration boost) and re-run the same 5 rounds with the new rule. Write both 5-round sequences side by side — that side-by-side pair is your before/after flow, with the shortfall and the fix both shown in numbers, not just described.
Mandatory challenge: Identify the biggest long-term resource threat your society faces, and describe the mechanism you have built to manage it.

🎤 Society Pitches — Kaikōrero (10 mins)

As timed above this lesson runs 75 minutes. In a single 60-minute period, run the pitches at the start of the next lesson rather than cutting them — the pitch is the assessment.

Each student (or group) delivers a 3-minute pitch of their complete society. Structure:

  1. Context — who are you and where/when is your society? (30 sec)
  2. People & Community — who belongs, and how are they connected? (30 sec)
  3. Governance — who decides, and how? (45 sec)
  4. Resources — how do you sustain yourselves? (45 sec)
  5. Biggest challenge — what could destroy your society, and what's your plan? (30 sec)
Peer feedback: After each pitch, one audience member must ask: "What is your society's weakest point?" The presenter must answer. This generates the best thinking of the unit.

Aromatawai — Culminating Assessment

Society Blueprint — Marking Guide

Beginning (1–2)

Describes a society with all four pillars present. Choices are made but not justified.

Developing (3–4)

Explains the reasoning behind key design choices. Identifies at least one trade-off or weakness.

Proficient (5–6)

Shows connections between pillars (changing one affects others). Society reflects learning from multiple real-world examples. Sustainability mechanism included.

Extended (7–8)

Society design includes a genuine tension or irreconcilable trade-off. Student can articulate why their system might fail and what they would do. Draws meaningfully on Te Ao Māori concepts.

Whakaaro — Final Reflection

You have now spent three lessons designing something human beings have been struggling with for thousands of years. There is no perfect society — every system has trade-offs. The most honest thing you can say about your design is not "here is the best society" but "here are the choices I made, and here is what I was willing to sacrifice to make them." That is also how real societies are made — through countless decisions, compromises, and negotiations between people with different needs and values.

The Māori concept of kaitiakitanga — guardianship — is perhaps the most important idea you take from this unit: whatever society you live in or build, you are responsible not just for your own wellbeing, but for the health of the whole system, for those who will come after you.

"Whāia te ara o ngā tūpuna, ā, ka tau ki uta."

Follow the path of the ancestors, and you will reach the shore safely.

← Lesson 2: Government Systems Back to Unit Overview All Unit Plans →

📋 Teacher Planning Snapshot

Ngā Whāinga Ako — Learning Intentions

Students design and critically analyse imagined societies — exploring governance, resource distribution, and systems thinking through the lens of tikanga Māori and contemporary civic values to understand how societies are structured and by whose values.

Ngā Paearu Angitū — Success Criteria

  • ✅ Can identify key systems in a society (governance, economy, environment) and explain how they interact
  • ✅ Applies tikanga and manaakitanga principles when designing governance and resource-sharing systems
  • ✅ Evaluates a designed society against criteria of equity, sustainability, and tino rangatiratanga

Differentiation & Inclusion

Scaffold support: Provide a society design template as an entry point; use role cards to assign students specific societal roles. Extension tasks include comparing their designed society to an existing iwi governance model, or drafting a founding document for their society and saying, in it, what tikanga would and would not do — tikanga is not a constitution to be borrowed.

ELL / ESOL: Use visual system diagrams; pre-teach civic vocabulary (governance, sovereignty, sustainability) alongside Māori equivalents (rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, toitū).

Inclusion: Offer design formats across modalities — written, diagrammatic, or oral presentation; neurodiverse learners benefit from structured design frameworks with clear decision points.

Mātauranga Māori lens: Kaitiakitanga is a relationship of responsibility, not a resource-governance model. Reading it as economics is a move this lesson makes deliberately — name it as ours, and keep the practice and the reading apart.

Prior knowledge: Basic awareness of how governments and economies work; familiarity with New Zealand civic structures.

Curriculum alignment

  • NZC (2007) · Social Studies · Level 5: “Understand how people’s management of resources impacts on environmental and social sustainability.”
  • Social Sciences — Level 3: Understand how people make decisions about access to and use of resources.