Trade-Off Roleplay — Making Difficult Decisions Under Scarcity
He Whakaari · Experiencing trade-offs through character roleplay · Years 7–8
Ngā Whāinga Akoranga · Learning Intentions
- Understand that trade-offs involve real costs and benefits that affect different people differently.
- Experience decision-making under scarcity from different stakeholder perspectives.
- Analyse how different values and priorities lead to different trade-off decisions.
- Connect roleplay outcomes to real economic and food justice scenarios.
Paearu Angitu · Success Criteria
- Students can define trade-off accurately and give a roleplay example.
- At least two different stakeholder perspectives are articulated with empathy.
- Trade-off decisions are justified with reference to values AND practical consequences.
- Students reflect on how their character's starting position shaped their choices.
Tūāhuatanga o te Whakaari · Scenario Context
- Option A — Ration strictly: Divide remaining food equally among all families. No selling or trading allowed.
- Option B — Market solution: Allow food to be bought and sold. Those with money can secure what they need.
- Option C — Priority groups: Allocate more to children, elderly, and pregnant women first; remaining food distributed equally.
Each option involves a trade-off. No option is perfect. Your job is to argue from your character's perspective — and then reflect on what you actually think after the roleplay.
Ngā Kāri Tūranga · Character Cards
Your teacher will assign you a character. Study your character card carefully before the roleplay begins.
You grew the food. You worked hard through the drought trying to save the crop. You are exhausted and worried about next season's seed. You believe those who produce food should have more say in how it is used.
Key concern: Will there be enough seed left to plant next season?
You work in construction and earn good wages, but you do not grow food. You have savings. Under a market system, you can afford food. Under strict rationing, you get the same as everyone else regardless of your ability to pay.
Key concern: Does having money make your need less legitimate?
You represent the iwi's perspective on resource management. Traditionally, food scarcity was managed communally, with manaakitanga guiding decisions. You believe the community's wellbeing as a whole must come first, especially for the most vulnerable.
Key concern: How do we maintain community relationships under pressure?
You are responsible for making a decision that is defensible to everyone. You are worried about legal liability, precedent, and economic stability. You believe in following systems and rules even in hard times.
Key concern: What decision can be implemented fairly and consistently?
You have three young children and no savings. You cannot work full-time. A market solution frightens you because you cannot compete. Strict rationing would help your family but you worry it is not sustainable. Priority groups would help your children but might leave you short.
Key concern: How will my children be fed regardless of which option is chosen?
Tūtohi Whakaari · Roleplay Record
My character:
Round 1 — In character: What argument did your character make? Which option did they prefer and why?
Round 2 — Negotiation: What trade-offs did your character have to accept? What did you give up and what did you gain?
Round 3 — As yourself: If you were actually in this community, which option would you choose and why?
Tātari Ōritetanga · Justice Analysis
Who benefited most from the final decision?
Who was most harmed? Was this fair?
How did your character's starting position (wealth, power, family situation) affect their choices and outcomes?
Hononga Marautanga · Curriculum Alignment
Curriculum alignment for this handout has not yet been verified against the live curriculum statements. A generated placeholder that stood here was removed on 2026-08-29 because it matched no real statement.
Tuhia ōu whakaaro · Write Your Thoughts
If manaakitanga were the governing principle of this decision — rather than economic efficiency or individual rights — how would the decision process and outcome have been different?
Aronga Mātauranga Māori
In te ao Māori, decision-making around shared resources like kai, land, and water was never purely economic — it was governed by tikanga that kept relationships at the centre. When communities faced scarcity, the question was not simply "how do we allocate what we have?" but "who do we owe care to, and in what order?" The principle of manaakitanga meant that guests and those in need were fed first. The principle of utu meant that generosity would be reciprocated across time. These principles shaped trade-offs in ways that prioritised relationship over transaction. In this roleplay, students can ask: what would the decision look like if manaakitanga were the governing principle rather than profit maximisation?
Ngā Rauemi Tautoko · Resources already provided
- unit-10-week3-trading-game.html — earlier simulation of resource allocation under scarcity using a market system
- unit-10-week1-scarcity-reflection.html — foundational scarcity vocabulary and concepts for this activity
- unit-10-week4-colonisation-comparison.html — historical context for how scarcity decisions have played out under colonial systems
- unit-10-peer-feedback-form.html — use after this activity for structured peer feedback on roleplay performance
📋 Teacher Planning Snapshot
Ngā Whāinga Ako — Learning Intentions
Students will engage with this resource to investigate the intersection of kai (food), culture, and climate — exploring how mātauranga Māori approaches to food production, preservation, and distribution offer powerful responses to contemporary food security and climate challenges in Aotearoa New Zealand and globally.
Ngā Paearu Angitū — Success Criteria
- ✅ Students can explain how traditional Māori kai practices (maramataka, kūmara cultivation, rāhui) embody ecological knowledge and food security principles.
- ✅ Students can connect kai culture and climate scarcity to contemporary community action and food sovereignty movements.
Differentiation & Inclusion
Scaffold support: Provide graphic organisers that map traditional kai practices to modern food security concepts at the entry level. Offer extension tasks asking students to research a specific iwi's traditional food system and evaluate its contemporary relevance, or to investigate a local food sovereignty initiative.
ELL / ESOL: Pre-teach domain vocabulary (food sovereignty, food security, kaitiakitanga, rāhui, maramataka) using visual diagrams and real-world examples. Draw connections to students' own cultural food traditions — these are valid entry points into the unit's themes. Allow oral or visual presentation of learning as alternatives to written tasks.
Inclusion: Kai is a universal human experience — all students have a relationship with food, seasonality, and sharing. Neurodiverse learners benefit from concrete, hands-on engagement with these concepts (e.g., examining a kūmara, mapping seasonal foods). Acknowledge diverse economic circumstances sensitively when discussing food security. Choice in how students demonstrate understanding (written, visual, oral) supports inclusive assessment.
Mātauranga Māori lens: The maramataka — the Māori lunar calendar — is one of Aotearoa's most sophisticated environmental data systems, encoding centuries of ecological observation about planting, harvesting, fishing, and weather patterns. Kūmara cultivation in pre-colonial Aotearoa was a feat of agricultural knowledge adapted to a new climate. Rāhui (temporary resource restrictions) is indigenous resource management — conservation before conservation. Kaitiakitanga frames the relationship between people and kai not as extraction but as reciprocal guardianship. These are not historical curiosities — they are living solutions to contemporary problems.
Prior knowledge: Students benefit from foundational understanding of climate change and food systems. No specialist mātauranga Māori knowledge required for entry-level engagement — the unit builds this knowledge progressively.