Visualising Mätauranga Mäori for Outcomes

Maui Hudson1,* Hëmi Whaanga1, Jordan Waiti1, Hohepa Maxwell2, Kyle Davis3, Te Awhina Arahanga3, John Proctor4, Matt Sword5, Thalia Ullrich6, Mike Taitoko6 1 Te Pua Wänanga ki te Ao Faculty of Mäori and Indigenous Studies, University of Waikato 2 Iwi Authority 3 Mahaanui Kurataiao 4 School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University 5 Muaupoko Tribal Authority 6 Takiwä Ltd

Abstracts i ngä whakataunga. Ko te whäinga o ngä hononga kaitiaki ko Ko te Mätauranga Mäori he puna nö te katoa, he mea äta te whakatinana ake i ngä mahere whakahaere mä roto anö i te whakatipu hoki e ngä whänau, e ngä hapü, e ngä iwi hoki o tënä, whakamatihiko i ngä raraunga me ngä körero i ngä mahere, me o tënä o ngä whakareanga maha. He mätauranga nö te hapori, te whakaatu i ërä i te taha o ngä raraunga pütaiao. E whakamana he mea äta whakatö hoki ki roto i ngä wheako o te ia rä, he mea nei tënei papa whakatü i ngä mana whenua mä roto i te whakaatu kawe ki te pürakau, ki te waiata, ki ngä karangahanga whenua, i ngä tohunga pütaiao pënei me te kounga, te nui ränei o te wai ki te kani, ki te kawa, ki te whakapapa, ki te pümahara, ki te (te wäwahi ränei) i roto i te horopaki o te raraunga mätauranga whakakitenga, ki te matakite, ki te whakaakoranga me te tohu Mäori, pënei anö me ngä whenua hirahira ki te Mäori me ngä pütake, hei tirohanga, ka mutu he mea äta ako mä te tirohanga, mahinga kai. Heoi, he take whakatü pihi te whakamahinga o te mä tängata kë atu ränei o te hapori. Tënei mea te Mätauranga mätauranga Mäori i ëtahi wä, nö reira me whai whakaaro ki te Mäori, he pünaha whakatipu möhiohio, he nukurau, he nanakia whakangungu i te mana, i te tüturu, i te ngäkau tapatahi ä-ahurea anö hoki, kua hangä mai ki te mätauranga ä-whänau, ä-hapü, nei anö hoki o ngä hapori ka whai wähi mai. ä-iwi anö hoki. Mätauranga Mäori is the shared intellectual capital generated by Kei te whakatau tikanga, kei te whakamahere, kei te whakamahi whänau, hapü and iwi over multiple generations. It is community hoki ëtahi hunga tangata i te Mätauranga Mäori, ka mutu kei knowledge embedded in lived experience and carried in stories, tënä öna anö whaihuatanga. Ko te aho e whakakotahi nei i ngä song, place names, dance, ceremonies, genealogies, memories, röpü käwanatanga me ngä kaunihera ä-rohe, ko te whakaaro visions, prophesies, teachings and original instructions, as learnt e hängai pü ana te mätauranga Mäori ki te Mäori, he mea through observation and via other community members. Mätau- whakahängai hoki, ka mutu he rerekë i tënä, i tënä o ngä rohe. Ki ranga Mäori is a dynamic, innovative, and generative system of tä te nuinga o ngä hunga tangata, ko te whakapakarihia o ö rätou knowledge constituted from mätauranga ä-whänau, mätauranga ake märamatanga ki te mätauranga Mäori tëtahi tino whäinga ä-hapü, and mätauranga ä-iwi. ä-rautaki, kei reira hoki he äwhina i te ärahi whakataunga, i te Mätauranga Mäori is being defined, framed, and operationalised whakahaerenga, i te tikanga mätai anö hoki, me te takoha atu with varying success by a range of institutions. The general ki te nanakia e taea nei e te mätauranga Mäori, kia waihangatia premise is that government agencies and regional councils mai ai he tatauranga tika mä tënei whakareanga. acknowledge mätauranga Mäori as Mäori-specific knowledge He maha ngä kauwaka e kawe atu nei i tënei mea i te Mätau- that is adaptive and regionally distinct. For most institutions, ranga Mäori. E körero nei ngä mana whenua i ö rätou hiahia ki improving their understanding of mätauranga Mäori is an im- te whakamahinga o ngä taputapu wähi ä-nuku hei whakakitenga portant strategic aim that can help guide their decision-making, atu i te mätauranga Mäori i te taha o te raraunga pütaiao, kia management, and monitoring procedures as well as contribute tautokohia ai ngä whakataunga ki ngä hua ä-taiao nei. I tënei to the innovative potential of Mäori knowledge in order to create pepa, ka körerohia e mätou ko Takiwa, koia he Geo-spatial Vis- culturally appropriate data for this generation. ualisation Tool e whakatakoto nei i te papa whakatü mö Takiwa Mätauranga Mäori is transmitted through a number of mediums. Lakes, e hängai nei ki ngä kaupapa wähi ä-nuku e toru. Kua Mana whenua are expressing interest in how geospatial tools can whai hononga te taputapu ki ëtahi kaitiaki, e tika ai te horopaki, visualise mätauranga Mäori alongside science data to support ngä kiko, me te whakahaere o te mätauranga Mäori i töna papa decision-making for environmental outcomes. In this paper we whakatü. He tino take ënei i tënei wä e aro pü nei ngä ohu discuss Takiwa, a geospatial visualisation tool that provides tangata kia nui ake te whakamahinga o te mätauranga Mäori the platform for Takiwa Lakes, in relation to three geospatial initiatives. This tool has developed kaitiaki layers to provide an appropriate context, content and control of mätauranga Mäori * Correspondence: [email protected] within its platform. These are critical factors as agencies focus

Mäui Hudson, who is affiliated to Te Whakatohea, Ngä Ruahine, and Te Mähurehure, is an Asso- ciate Professor at Te Pua Wänanga ki te Ao Faculty of Mäori and Indigenous Studies, University of Waikato. His research interests include Mäori research ethics, interface of mätauranga Mäori and science, Mäori innovation, and Indigenous Data Sovereignty..

42 Science Review Vol 76 (1–2) 2020 on increasing the use of mätauranga Mäori for decision-making. Table 1. Typology of traditional knowledge (TK). The aim of the kaitiaki layers is to bring iwi management plans Orientations Description to life by digitising the data and information within the plans and presenting them alongside scientific data. This platform empow- Ecological TK supplements Western science, offering unique ers mana whenua by presenting scientific indicators such as insights into ecological processes water quality and quantity (e.g. allocation) within the context of Critical TK is embedded in uneven, colonial relations of mätauranga Mäori data such as sites of cultural significance and power Relational TK emphasises the relationship between mahinga kai. However, the use of mätauranga Mäori can be a knowledge, place, and practice, recognising the sensitive issue and it is important that consideration is given to kincentric relationship with the natural world protecting the cultural authority, cultural authenticity, and cultural Collaborative TK holds a position of empowerment for integrity of the participating communities. Indigenous peoples that enable Indigenous Keywords: Mätauranga Mäori; Indigenous Knowledge; Tra- peoples to create conversations, spaces, institutions, and mechanisms across knowledge ditional Knowledge; Geospatial visualisation; Mana Whenua; systems in order to protect their own knowledge Takiwa tool; freshwater monitoring; cultural authority; cultural systems. authenticity; cultural integrity

Indigenous Knowledge et al et al. it continues to be applied and adapted to a variety of con- temporary contexts (Durie . 2012; Smith , 2016). Every society, culture and language has developed its own There are many manifestations of mātauranga Māori from knowledge system for describing the world grounded in become:its historical origins in Polynesia to its evolution in Aotea- traditional understandings and enriched through local ex- roa (Royal 2009), and over the past 20 years the term has perience and practical use. These knowledge systems are increasingly important as more and more people are en- known by a range of terms including Indigenous Knowledge gaged in efforts to understand what it means. Put simply, (IK), Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Traditional the term refers to Māori knowledge. However, once efforts Knowledge (TK), and Local Ecological or Environmental are made to understand what the term means in a wider Knowledge (LEK). Castellano (2000, p. 24), describes IK as context it soon becomes evident that Mātauranga Māori has been handed down more or less intact from previous is a lot more complex. (Mead 2012, pp. 9-10) knowledgegenerations. that: With variations from nation to nation, it tells of the creation of the world and the origin of clans et al in encounters between ancestors and spirits in the form At an epistemological level Hardy . (2015, p. 48–49) of animals; it records genealogies and ancestral rights to The interconnectedness of people and nature present four overarching features of mātauranga Māori: territory; and it memorialises battles, boundaries, and treaties and instils attitudes of wariness or trust toward (i) : Whakapapa neighbouring nations. Through heroic and cautionary places Māori within an ecological sphere at the same tales, it reinforces values and beliefs; these in turn provide level and linked to the natural world. A whole-of-system the substructure for civil society. Sacrednessapproach takes of nature into account the human-ecology relation- ship and their influence on each other. (ii) : All things have a life force of their Embedded in lived experience and carried in stories, own, and as such have their place in the order of things. song, place names, dance, ceremonies, genealogies,et al memo- All living things and natural resources are taonga de- ries, visions, prophesies, teachings and original instructions, rived from the supernatural world, which evokes ethical IK is a shared-community knowledge (Smith . 2016). It conceptsGuardianship/ of reverence kaitiakitanga for creation as a whole including has high intrinsic value and tends to be context-dependent tionskinship, to andthe naturalreciprocity. world confer the responsibility to and localised to particular communities, places and regions (iii) : Māori ancestral connec- (see, for example, Berkes 1995, 2008;et al. Cajete 1999, 2000;et al. Grenier 1988;et Houdeal 2007; Isaac 2015; Latulippe 2015; sustain and maintain the well-being of people, commu- Menzies 2006; Reo 2011; Sillitoe 2005; Smith nities, and natural resources. Kaitiakitanga is the active 2016; Wehi . 2009; Whaanga & Wehi 2015; Whyte, naturalpractice resources. of spiritual and physical guardianship based 2013). onIntergenerational tikanga to support passage the wise of knowledge management and care of IK is used interchangeable with TK and often reflects the positioning of the authors who ‘operate under differing (iv) : Māori possess a sets of assumptions and towards particular ends (Latulippe rich knowledge of ecological systems and relationships 2015, p. 118). While descriptions are not fixed or mutually with the natural world, accumulated through their long exclusive, they tend to cluster in four general categories: history of resource use in specific locales, spanning ecological, critical, relational, and collaborative (Latulippe, many generations. The inter-generational connections 2015)Mätauranga (see Table Mäori 1). between people and nature is strengthened as mātau- ranga is passed down through generations, combining Usepractice, of matauranga knowledge, Mäori and belief in research systems. Mātauranga Māori has been defined as ‘the unique Māori way of viewing themselves and the world, which encom- passes (among other things) Māori traditional knowledge The interface of mātauranga Māori and science has become1 and culture’ (Waitangi Tribunal 2011, p. 6). Mātauranga increasingly relevant as the Vision Mātauranga policy (VM) Māori is a cumulative body of knowledge that has accrued is being implemented across a range of research funders over millennia. It carries meaning for Māori communities as in Aotearoa (MoRST 2007). At a practical level the interdis- New Zealand Science Review Vol 76 (1–2) 2020 43 Table 2. Dimensions of mätauranga Mäori relevant to ciplinary interface provides opportunitieset al.for knowledge freshwater management. etexchange, al. innovation, and the creation of both mātauranga Governance Treaty relationships, mana whenua status Māori and science (Durie 2005; Hudson 2012; Smith Goals Mäori values, whakataukï, Mäori environmental 2013; Hikuroa 2016). Mātauranga Māori is gaining a concepts more visible presence within the research environment, as Objectives Mäori aspirations, historical accounts, Mäori conceptual frameworks it is being used in an increasinget al number ofet practicalal. contexts Actions Traditional Ecological Knowledge, cultural etto supportal. environmental management and ecological res- management practices, Mäori modelling tools toration (Bernhardt . 2011; Uprety 2012; Hudson Limits Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Cultural protocols 2016; Landcare 2016). However, as researchers and (Tikanga), Mäori assessment frameworks Monitoring Cultural indicators (Tohu), Mäori monitoring tools institutions become more open to the potential value of mātauranga Māori, there are a number of important factors etthat al. should be recognisedet al. so that communities do not feel Implementation challenges 1.like Acknowledging their knowledges contemporary are being misappropriated relevance and (Whaanga applica- tion 2017;: Williams 2017) Knowledge translation, dissemination, implementation, and uptake are becoming increasingly important to transitioning 2. AcknowledgingIwi partners cultural value mātauranga validity: Māori not only for its historic significance but its contemporary relevance. innovative research into policy and practice. The institution- al drivers, such as VM, for incorporating mātauranga into Mātauranga Māori in part from Treaty responsibilities with mana whenua. research, policy, and/or decision-making processes arise 3. Acceptinginforms not epistemologicalonly traditional practices difference but also: Māori and iwi participation within Council activities. Mana whenua is a term used to describe hapū or Iwi with Mātauranga decision-making rights and kaitiaki responsibilities across 4. AcknowledgingMāori brings a different mana value whenua set and responsibility way of understand for- specific areas and domains in the environment. Relation- mātaurangaing phenomena Māori to the: table. ships with mana whenua require a better understanding of mātauranga Māori both to support the interface with science 5. Developing a more nuancedThe management understanding and use of of mātau mātau- and its use within decision-making. This context creates ranga represents Māori: a core responsibility of mana whenua. theirspecific social implementation licence2 and their challenges cultural to licence ensure3 programmes of the different disciplines and content that exist under are delivered in a culturally appropriate manner, maintain Developing a more nuanced understanding . Key elements of a recently developed implementation framework for 6. Exploring the interface of mātauranga Māori and Māori communities are community engagement, cultural sciencethe broad: definition of mātauranga Māori is necessary. et al. centred approach, systems thinking, and integrated knowl- Recognising the difference between science as edge translation (Oetzel 2017). The components of the a content, science as a process, and science as a commu- framework are consistent with kaupapa Māori approaches nity is vital for understanding mātauranga as a body of and enhance implementation by prioritising both mātau- knowledge, mātauranga as a system of knowledge, and ranga Māori and rangatiratanga (self-determination). The 7. Incorporating mātauranga Māori within institution- practicecore implementation are: challenges that have emerged from almātauranga workstreams as a :community of knowledge. 1.efforts Ethics to ofincorporate engagement: mātauranga Māori into policy and Institutions have a diverse range of are consistent with cultural expectations and ethical responsibilities and programmes of work which are ex- codes. ensuring engagement processes pected to incorporate mātauranga Māori. Relationships 2. Māori data sovereignty: with mana whenua, recognition of cultural intellectual nershipproperty, with and mana processes whenua. of knowledge management are recognising the inherent rights all significant issues that should be addressed in part- and interests that Māori collectives have in mātauranga 3. KnowledgeMāori and Māorimanagement: data, and the importance of Māori A key consideration for using mātauranga Māori is governance of Māori data. understanding that it is a body of knowledge comprising having clear processes and a range of different types of knowledge. The usefulness of 4. Modellingrules about with the collection, mātauranga storage, and use of mātau- any particular type of knowledge or specialist disciplinary ranga Māori, especially secondary use. information will depend on its relevance to the activity be- : ensuringet participa-al. ing undertaken. The table below outlines the how different tion of any communities that use their mātauranga as dimensions of mātaurangaet al. Māori could align with different inputs into modelling exercises. (Hudson 2017) components, for example, in a freshwater management 2 regime1 Royal Society (Hudson of New Zealand, 2016a). https://royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/ Ability of an organisation or industry to undertake business in a socially funds-and-opportunities/marsden/application-process/submitting-a- and environmentally acceptable way with confidence from society (MPI proposal/vision-matauranga/; Health Research Council, http://www.hrc. 2017). govt.nz/funding-opportunities/maori-development; MBIE, https://www. 3 Ability of an organisation or industry to undertake business in a mbie.govt.nz/science-and-technology/science-and-innovation/agencies- culturally acceptable way with confidence from Mäori Treaty partners policies-and-budget-initiatives/vision-matauranga-policy/ and iwi (MPI 2017).

44 New Zealand Science Review Vol 76 (1–2) 2020 Actively planning for these implementation challenges is the ability to store restricted datasets including mātauranga vital for building trust and accountability into relationships Māori. A series of workshops were conducted with kaumātua •with mana whenua and ensuring mātauranga is used in wayand manathat both whenua made to sense identify to the cultural iwi and values was coherent and other in thedi- ways• that maintain; mensions of mātauranga Māori. Organising mātauranga in a • te mana o te tangata (cultural authority), te wairua o te korero (cultural authenticity), and context of the scientific data was an important step. Aligning Casete mauri studies o te kaupapa (cultural integrity). iwi observations and narratives with indicators and models Muaüpoko geospatial platform to support Muaūpoko-based decision-makinget was al a key step. Not only was this consistent with the data–information– knowledge–wisdommana framework (Mercier . 2012), it Located in the western side of the Rimutaka and Tararua also built on a proposed mauriorganisational schema for layers ranges to Te Whanganui-a-Tara (), Porirua, Kapiti relating to (cultural siteswairua of significance – consistent Coast, Horowhenua, Manawatu to Rangitikei, Muaūpoko across time and space), (cultural indicators – vary are the descendants of Tara, the eponymous ancestor of across time and space), and (cultural aspirations the Ngāi Tara tribe. Muaūpoko developed as a separate and – reinforce identity across time and space). This schema is unique iwi over time and established its own hapū, areas Tapuika:illustrated Thein Figure importance 1. of creating new Mäori of occupation, use and access to resources from this region data Horowhenua.(Muaupoko Tribal Authority 2015–2017). One of the key sites of significance within the rohe is Punahou or Lake boundariesTapuika is a were tribe formed of Te as the thattupuna extends Tia made from hiscoastal way As part of a programme of monitoring and restoration, Western inland towards . Its interior the Muaūpoko Iwi Authority developed a project, funded noho tuturu by Te Wai Māori Trust, to build a cultural indicators frame- inlandclaim mana discovering whenua the and Lake mana Taupō moana nui a Tia. His son Tapuika work. The framework was to identify relevant targets and remained in the lands and, through , Tapuika indicators that support the Trust and Muaūpoko to lead the . The Tapuika Claims restoration, maintenance, and preservation of their lakes Settlement Act 2014 created the Te Maru o Kaituna River and rivers. While numerous data-sets and indictors exist in Authority as ‘a co-governance partnership mandated to the scientific communities and with regional councils and restore, protect and enhance the environmental, cultural iwi.government, there are very few documented indicators that and spiritual health and well-being of the Kaituna River’ help to articulate the cultural values that are important to (Bay of Plenty Regional Council, BOPRC 2019). Protect- ing and enhancing the wellbeing of the Kaituna river is a core responsibility of the Tapuika Iwi Authority and as a The project made use of the Takiwa Geospatial Platform consequence they have engaged in research relationships to organise the range of public and private datasets that et and projects to better understand and coordinate scientific the iwi identified as being relevant to freshwater decision- al data and mātauranga about the health of the river (Waiti making. The geospatial platform provided easy access to . 2017a & b). This included projects investigating current the wide range of publically available datasets as well as

Figure 1. Muaupoko framework for a geospatial platform.

New Zealand Science Review Vol 76 (1–2) 2020 45 Table 4. Definitions of themes for Tapuika mätauranga.

Theme Definition monitoring and historic data for five sites on the Kaituna river (see Table 3), in addition to Tapuika mātauranga (de- Kaupapa Principles and values that guide the management and usage of mahinga kai. scribedTable 3. thematicallyAttributes monitored in Table by4). BOPRC each month at five Tängata Iwi members who use, co-manage, and co-govern different sites along the Kaituna River. mahinga kai resources. Tuku Iho Using the past to inform the future. Significant Dissolved oxygen Flow Specific conductivity historical körero, text, whakataukï (proverbial Temperature Turbidity Calcium sayings), etc., that describe a past environmental Suspended solids Magnesium Dissolved reactive state. phosphorus Take Issues that impact the health and well-being of Biochemical oxygen pH Ammonium mahinga kai. demand Tikanga Practices and methods implemented in the field by Potassium Total Kieldahl Enterococcus kaitiaki and kaimahi (those doing the work). nitrogen Whakakitenga Field observations by experienced kaitiaki and Chloride Sulphate Total phosphorus kaimahi (those doing the work). E. coli Faecal coliforms Tohu Signs and indicators used to interpret and monitor (Waiti et al. 2017b) what is happening in the environment. (Waiti et al. 2017a)

Alongside the research projects a decision was made to make use of the Takiwa geospatial platform to visualise a the case studies outlined above demonstrate how mana range of scientific data as well as Tapuika-specificwhenua mātauran- whenua have orientated the scientific datasets within iwi andga. The awa project team realised that, while Tapuika members value-based frameworks, layering them alongside mātauran- retain important knowledge about their (land) ga-related content. Each iwi chose a framework which made (river), much of it was historical and experiential. sense to their context, and subsequent discussions have been As this mātauranga is in a different format to the scientific held to see whether it is possible to switch views between monitoring data, visualisation and analysis of the two forms different contextual frameworks to allow iwi to consider the of information alongside each other is more challenging. As data through a different lens (i.e., capitals approach v. mana a result, the team has since been working qualitativewith Landcare and whenua approach). quantitativeResearch to measuresadapt a Kaupapa for stated Māori attributes Assessment consistent Tool with for the Inconcepts each case of researchers mana mauri have beenwairua working to conceptual with iwi to theWai National Ora Wai Objectives Māori. The Framework tool is made (NOF) up bandsof ‘ for assessing visualise different sorts of Māori content. They have used and reporting standards and condition of selected attributes’ , , and mana domain relates- ise different types of content that can be generated from mātauranga Māori. Content in the (Landcare Research, 2016). The aim of this new component to cultural sites of significance that representmauri domain the ongoing relates is to ensure that more consistent and regular mātauran- associations (both spiritually and culturally) that iwi have ga-based observational data can be collected and analysed with their environment. Content inwairua the domain relates to Mahaanuialongside the Kurataiao: scientific monitoring Visualising data. an Iwi to assessments of the state of the environment (i.e., cultural Environmental Management Plan and collecting health indicators). Content in the freshwater data the historic associations with place, and how these can in- form restoration activities to enhance relationships with the ment unit for the rūnaka environment. Mātauranga tends to be information Culturalrich but Mahaanui Kurataiao (MKT) is the environmental manage- Healthdata poor, Indicators so the generation of new Māori data Waiis necessary Ora Wai based around the Greater Canter- Māorifor enhanced App monitoringet al and modelling. Tools like bury region. As part of a project to better understand the (Tipa & Tierney 2006) or the groundwater resource MKT workedatua with Waiora Pacific to (Awatere . 2017) support the collection of utilise the Takiwa geospatial platform and adapt it to locate new Māori data. scientific datasets within an (diety) based framework However, as the use of mātauranga Māori can be a aligned to the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan (Jolly & Nga sensitive issue for mana whenua groups, it is important Papatipu Runanga Working Group, 2013). In addition to been able to add additional data about consents across that consideration is given to protecting the cultural au- visualising various publicly available datasets they have thority, cultural authenticity, and cultural integrity of the participating communities. Few organisations have specific their rohe (region) including volumes and lengths of each sophisticated analyses of water allocation and use and how policies or protocols in place to manage the collection, use, consent. This has provided the foundation for increasingly contributes to the discomfort experienced by mana whenua and management of mātauranga Māori, a situation which this relates to issues of water quality for Te Waihora and the focused iwi attention on the need to establish clear protocols groups. Recent literature around Māori data sovereignty has widerDiscussion catchment (see Figure 2). Hudson et al. around the secondary use of data (Kukutai & Taylor 2016; As access to data increases, the way in which that data is these boundaries 2016b). and Itresponsibilities is important that so that discussions information and contextualised and visualised is important. Framing data agreements are made with mana whenua groups that clarify within an iwi worldview allows iwi to make sense of different types of data whether it emerges from a scientific inquiry can only move from private spaces to public spaces with appropriate permissions. Data access should be determined 46or a mātauranga-based inquiry. The briefNew Zealanddescriptions Science of Review Vol 76 (1–2) 2020 Figure 2. Screen capture from Mahaanui Kurataiao. References by the owner/provider of the data and managed by a man- Wai Ora Wai Māori – a kaupapa dated kaitiaki. Awatere,Māori S.,assessment Robb, M., toolTaura, Y., Reihana, K., Harmsworth, G., Te Maru, J., Watene-Rawiri, E. 2017. Data management is not a term normally associated [Landcare Research Manaaki Whenua with mātauranga Māori (Whaanga & Wehi 2015). None- Policy Brief]. Retrieved from https://www.landcareresearch. theless, as the knowledge economy continues to grow and co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/145108/policy-brief-19-Te Maru o Kaituna River society shifts towards open data environments we have to Wai-Ora-Wai-Maori.pdfAuthority be much smarter about creating tools that will allow us to Bay of Plenty Regional Council 2019. et al et al. . Retrieved from https://www.boprc.govt.nz/your- utilise mātauranga Māori in culturally and ethically appro- council/council-and-region/council-and-committees/te-maru- priate ways (Boulton . 2014; Hudson 2018). Data o-kaituna-river-authority/ Traditional Ecological Knowledge infrastructures will only be useful if we have the ability to Berkes,Concepts F. 1995. and Traditional Cases ecological knowledge in perspective. adequately use them so improving technical skills and build- Pp. 1–9 in: Inglis, J.T. (Ed.), ing capacity in this key area will be an important activity. Sacred Ecology.. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Museum of Nature. Similarly, Māori communities have to assume responsibility Berkes, F. 2008. (2nd edn) New York: Routledge. for the governance of data (both mātauranga-based and Bernhardt, E.S.,Ecological Margaret, Applications A.P. 2011. 21River restoration: The science-based) and sustain a ‘response ability’ around fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale data for governance if we are to shift our capacity to use degradation. (6): 1926–1931. mātauranga Māori and Māori data from a ‘reactive inquiry’ Boulton, A., Hudson, M., Ahuriri-Driscoll, A,. Stewart, A. 2014. EnactingInternational kaitiakitanga Indigenous challenges Policy Journal and complexities in the space to a more proactive one focused on creating insights governanceA and People’s ownership Ecology: of Explorations rongoā research in sustainable information. living. andConclusion initiatives. 5(2): 1–18. Cajete, G. 1999. Native Science: Natural laws of interdependence. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Pub. Mātauranga Māori was traditionally transmitted through Cajete, G. 2000. a number of mediums. Now mana whenua are expressing Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Pub. Indigenous Castellano,Knowledges M.B. 2000.in Global Updating Contexts: Aboriginal Multiple traditions readings of of knowledge. our world. interest in how geospatial tools can visualise mātauranga Pp. 21–36 in: Dei, G., Hall, B., Rosenberg, D.G. (Eds) Māori alongside science data to support decision-making for environmental outcomes. The key challenges for iwi Toronto,system. Higher Ontario: Education University Policy of Toronto 18 Press. entities in making their mātauranga Māori more readily Durie, M. 2005. Indigenous knowledge within a global knowledge accessible and usable is to develop platforms that provide New Zealand(3): 301–302.Journal of Educational Durie,Studies M.H., 47 Hoskins, T.K., Jones, A. 2012. Interview: Kaupapa the appropriate context, content, and control over the use Māori: ShiftingWorking the social. with Indigenous Knowledge: A guide of mātauranga Māori. for researchers(2): 21–29. manual. Grenier, L. 1988. Ottawa, Ontario: International Development Research Centre. Hardy, D., Patterson, M., Smith, H., Taiapa, C. 2015. Cross-cultural environmental research processes, principles, and methods: Coastal examples from Aotearoa/ New Zealand. Pp. 44–80 New Zealand Science Review Vol 76 (1–2) 2020 47 Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Environmental Studies in: Matthias, R. (Ed.) Oetzel, J., Scott, N., Hudson, M., Masters, B., Rarere, M., Foote, J., . Cheltenham, UK; Beaton, A., Ehau, T. 2017.Globalization Implementation and frameworkHealth 13 for Northampton, Massachusetts:Journal of the Edward Royal Society Elgar Publishing. of New Zealand chronic disease intervention effectiveness in Māori and other Hikuroa,47 D. 2016. Mātauranga Māori—the ūkaipō of knowledge Indigenous communities. (69). in New Zealand. Retrieved from https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral. (1): 5–10. com/articles/10.1186/s12992-017-0295-8The International Indigenous Houde, N. 2007. TheEcology six faces and of Societytraditional 12 ecological knowledge: Reo,Policy N. 2011. Journal The 2 importance of belief systems in traditional Challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management ecological knowledgeM tauranga initiatives. M ori. arrangements. (2): 34. Retrieved from (4): 1–4. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34/ Royal, T.A.C. 2009. ā ā Porirua, Wellington: Hudson, M., Anderson, T., Dewes,. T.K., Temara, P., Whaanga, H., Roa, Mauriora-ki-te-Ao/Living Universe Ltd. T. 2018. He Matapihi ki teHe Mana Whare Raraunga: Hangarau Conceptualising Māori – Language, Big Sillitoe, P., Dixon, P., Barr, J. 2005. Indigenous Knowledge Inquiries: Dataculture through & technology a Maori lens Pp. 62-71 in: H. Whaanga, H., Keegan, A methodologies manual for development programmes and T.T., Apperley, M. (Eds) projects (Indigenous Knowledge and Development). Rugby, [Ebook] Hamilton, New Zealand: Te UK: ITDGDialogue Publishing. at a Cultural Interface: A report for Te Hau Mihi Pua Wānanga ki te Ao, Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato. Smith,Ata: L., M Hemi,tauranga M., Hudson, M ori, Science M., Roberts, & Biotechnology M., Tiakiwai, S., Baker, M. Hudson, M., Collier, K., Awatere, S., Harmsworth, G., Henry, J., 2013. Quinn,study. The J., Robb, International M. 2016a. Journal Integrating of Science Indigenous in Society Knowledge 8 ā ā . Hamilton, New and freshwater management: An Aotearoa/New Zealand case Zealand: Te Kotahi Research Institute University of Waikato (1): 1–14. Smith, L.T., Maxwell, T.K., Puke, H., Temara, P. 2016. Indigenous Hudson, M., Farrar,Indigenous D., McLean, Data L. 2016b. Sovereignty: Tribal Toward Data Sovereignty: an Agenda. knowledge, methodologyKnowledge and mayhem: Cultures What 4 is the role of Whakatohea Rights and Interests. Pp. 157-178 in: Kukutai, T., methodology in producing indigenous insights? A discussion Taylor, J. (Eds) from Mātauranga Māori. (3): 131–156. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research Tipa, G., Teirney, L. 2006. A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Monograph Series, ANU Press. Waterways: A tool for nationwide use. A report prepared for Hudson, M., Roberts, M., Smith,New Genetics L.T., Hemi, & Society M., Tiakiwai, 31 S. 2012. the Ministry for the Environment. Retreived from https:// The ART of dialogue with Indigenous communities in the new www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/cultural-health-index- Incorporatingbiotechnology mworld.tauranga M ori into the Waikato(1): 11–24. Regional for-streams-and-waterways-tech-report-apr06.pdf Hudson,Council M., workstreams: Whaanga, H., ImplementationWaiti, J., Williams, Challenges J., Roa, T. 2017. Uprety,restoration: Y., Asselin, Practices H., Bergeron, and applications. Y., Doyon, Ecoscience F., Boucher, 19 J.F. ā ā 2012. Contribution of Traditional Knowledge to ecological [Report Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: Report of the Waitangi(3): commissioned by the Waikato Regional Council]. Hamilton, Tribunal225–237. on Indigenous flora and fauna and cultural intellectual New Zealand: ValuesTe Pua Wānangaand Co-production: ki te Ao, Te WhareExamining Wānanga the Waitangiproperty Tribunal. claim 2011.(Wai 262). ointerface Waikato. of Indigenous Peoples’ understandings and scientific Ngā Tohu o Isaac,understandings. D. 2015. te Taiao Case Study Report: Wellington: Tapuika WaitangiIwi and Kaituna Tribunal. River. Waiti,Prepared J., Hudson, for Tapuika M., Maxwell, Iwi Authority H., Wilson, R. 2017a. MPhil Thesis, University of Waterloo,Mahaanui Waterloo, Iwi Ontario,Management Canada. Plan for Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga, Te Hapū o Ngāti . Hamilton, New Zealand: Te Jolly,Wheke D., Nga (Rāpaki), Papatipu Te Runanga Rūnanga Working o Koukourārata, Group. 2013. nuku Rūnanga, PuaTapuika Wānanga Iwi Monitoring ki te Ao, Te Plan Whare for Wānangathe Kaituna o Waikato.River. Wairewa Rūnanga, & Te Taumutu Rūnanga. Waiti, J., Marsh, H., Maxwell, H., Wilson, R., Hudson, M. 2017b. Ō Hamilton, Data Sovereignty for Indigenous Retrieved Peoples: from New Zealand: Te Pua Wānanga ki te Ao, Te Whare Wānanga https://www.mkt.co.nz/iwi-management-plan/Current Practice and Future Needs, Indigenous Data Sovereignty. o Waikato. Kukutai, T., Taylor, J. 2016. Wehi, P.M., Whaanga, H., Roa, T. 2009.Journal Missing of the in Royal translation: Society of Maori New languageZealand 39 and oral tradition in scientific analyses of traditional Canberra: Australian National Univ. Press. ecological knowledge (TEK). Landcare Research. 2016. What is Maturanga Māori? Retrieved from (4): 201–204. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/about/sustainability/ Whaanga, H., Wehi, P.M. 2015. Te wawao i te mātauranga Māori: voices/matauranga-maori/what-is-matauranga-maoriAlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous knowledge in a digital age - Issues and ethics of Latulippe,Indigenous N. 2015. Peoples Situating 11 the work: A typology of traditional knowledge managementEthnographies and knowledge in Pan exchange Pacific in Research: Aotearoa knowledge literature. /Tensions New Zealand. and Positionings Pp. 231–250 in: Rinehart, R.E., Emerald, E., (2): 118–131. Matamua, R. (Eds) How Mead,Conversations H.M. 2012. onUnderstanding Mātauranga Māori. Mātauranga Māori. Pp. 1–8 in: institutions frame m tauranga. Routledge: Māori. New Report York. commissioned Haemata Ltd, Black, T., Bean, D., Collings, W., Nuku, W. (Eds) Whaanga,by the H.,Waikato Waiti, RegionalJ., Hudson, Council. M., Williams, J., Roa, T. 2017. Traditional Ecological Wellington, Knowledge New Zealand: and ā NewNatural Zealand Resource Qualifications Management. Authority. Hamilton, New Zealand: Te Menzies, C. (Ed.) 2006. Pua Wānanga ki te Ao, Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato.Ecological Lincoln, Nebrasks: University Whyte,Processes K. 2013. 2( On the role of traditional ecological knowledge of Nebraska Press. as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study. Mercier, O.R., Stevens, N., Toia, A. 2012. MātaurangaMAI Māori Journal and 7). Retrieved from http://www.ecologicalprocesses. the1 data–information–knowledge–wisdom hierarchy: A com/content/2/1/7The transfer and management of Mātauranga Māori. Report conversation on interfacing knowledgePrimary systems. Sector Science Williams,commissioned J., Hudson, by theM., WaikatoWaiti, J., RegionalWhaanga, Council. H., Roa, T. 2017. Roadmap:(2): 103–116. Strengthening New Zealand’s bioeconomy for future Ministrygenerations. for Primary Industries. 2017. Hamilton, New Zealand: Te Pua Wānanga ki te Ao, Te Whare Wānanga Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for Primary o Waikato. Industries. http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/ publications/Vision M tauranga: Unlocking the innovation potential of M ori Ministryknowledge, of Research resources Science and people. and Technology (MoRST) 2007. ā ā Wellington,Te iwi New Muaupoko. Zealand: Ministry of Research Science and Technology. Muaupoko Tribal Authority. 2015–2017. 48 Retreived from http://muaupoko.iwi.nz/wp/?page_id=11New Zealand Science Review Vol 76 (1–2) 2020