Māori values and GIS: the New Zealand experience
Garth Harmsworth
1
Email 
1 Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research Ltd, Private Bag 11052, Palmerston North, New Zealand
[Reference as Harmsworth, G. (1997). Māori Values and GIS: The New Zealand Experience. GIS Asia Pacific, The Geographic Technology Publication for the Asia Pacific Region, April 1997]
The indigenous Māori in New Zealand are adding a new dimension to geographic information systems (GIS) applications by using the technology to store and analyze information related to Māori cultural values.
Although the indigenous Māori make up only 14 percent of the total population in New Zealand, a large proportion of that percentage – about 71 percent – have a strong sense of belonging to regional or geographically located tribes (iwi) and sub-tribes (hapuu). Land, water, and air are central to Māori life and values, as they are to most indigenous societies, and Māori regard themselves as kaitiaki (guardians) over these natural resources (see figure 1 ). The Treaty of Waitangi, signed by Māori and the British in 1840, gave rights to the Māori people for all their land, estates, forests, fisheries and everything else regarded as precious, including the natural resources and the Māori language.
To fulfil present-day legislative requirements, information on Māori values must be taken into account in resource management and environmental planning. However, the lack of information on Māori values in planning databases, coupled with the sensitivity and confidentiality of storing this type of information and the problems in gaining access to it, have made legislative requirements difficult to meet.
The retention of Māori knowledge by Māori , the need to record vast amounts of spatial information in treaty claims for historic land grievances, and to record and store Māori values information for resource management legislation are factors which have led to an increasing interest in the development of tribally owned and managed GIS tools for Māori . GIS is perceived to have applications in a number of areas, including resource management, environmental planning, tribal history archiving, tribal and economic development, property management, education, training, and social planning.
Examples from both New Zealand and Canada indicate that where GIS is used and developed by indigenous peoples, they add their own cultural imprint and a further dimension to GIS applications. One of the most important aspects of this is the development of GIS tools as complementary systems to indigenous knowledge systems that have traditionally stored and transferred knowledge and information in oral form, and where links to people, places, and cultural activities are very important. Māori provide a number of examples of the ability of developing GIS in a culturally appropriate manner, consistent with traditional beliefs, customs, and values.
The Cultural Dimension
Māori values are instruments through which the Māori people view/interpret/experience and, in general, make sense of the world. These values manifest themselves in many forms in the natural world, and can be conceptualized as areas, places, sites, attributes, features, and items, both tangible and intangible (see figure 2). Māori values can be described as historic, cultural, spiritual, and biophysical. Often as attributes of land, water, and culture, they can be represented or expressed in a spatial or geographic context ( see figure 3 ).
Māori Values Classification
Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd is presently working with a number of Māori organizations to develop classification systems and frameworks that describe and organize various types and forms of Māori values information for storage and analysis using GIS tools. Methods are being developed to take into account traditional Māori beliefs, information sensitivity as well as confidentiality. Before entering data into a GIS, information is organized into eight main groups (1B 8) from the general classification shown in Table 1. Based on these main groups, a more detailed Māori values classification has been developed to include:
* historic places, and tribal landmarks
* ancestral sites
* archaeological sites
* sacred sites
* indigenous place names
* biophysical resources (landforms, soils, vegetation types, etc)
* biodiversity (remnant indigenous forest, ecological systems,etc)
* traditional food gathering sites
* special plants for weaving and medicines
GIS and Māori Values
The most important factors to be considered when storing indigenous information in a GIS are: resolution (ie different levels of detail); sensitivity of information (ie confidential and/or information requiring in-depth cultural understanding); and cultural and intellectual property rights (ie ownership or privacy rights to be attached to each piece of information). These factors will affect the type and form of the information that can be stored, analyzed and displayed by a GIS.
To satisfy these requirements, all the classified information is organized within the matrix framework shown in Table 1 . From top to bottom (1B8) the information becomes progressively more sensitive, while from left to right (aBd) the information becomes more detailed, confidential and personal, with property rights and access to information becoming more important. GIS database structures have been specially designed to accomodate information at national, regional, local, and individual levels. This structure provides links between information at the national level, which is likely to be more general and accessible in the public domain; and information accessible at the local level, which is likely to be more detailed and confidential, requiring some form of restricted or protected access.
Table 1. A matrix framework for recording Māori values information |
||||
| Main groups used in Māori values classification |
a. National level, central government (national databases public domain access) |
b. Regional and district databases, such as local government(conditions and criteria required for storing confidential information) |
c. Māori databases such as at the iwi or hapuu tribal level(secured protection of information) |
d. Individual or group information - extended family (whaanau) or individual(highly sensitive or personal infomation) |
| 1. vegetation |
1a. national or regional data vegetation and land use |
1b. regional or district data on vegetation and land use |
1c. local information on vegetation types |
1d. special vegetation, such as medicinal plants, plants for weaving |
| 2. animals, birds, fish, insects |
2a. national or regional data on animals, birds, etc. |
2b. regional or district data on animals, birds, fish, insects |
2c. local information on animals, birds, fish, insects |
2d. special animals, birds, fish, insects, such as special foods, cultural harvest |
| 3. land, soil |
3a. national or regional data on landforms, soils, etc. |
3b. regional or district data on landforms, soils, etc. |
3c. tribal information on land features, landforms, soils, etc. |
3d. special landmarks, land features, muds for weaving dyes |
| 4. water |
4a. national or regional data on water |
4b. regional or district data on water |
4c. tribal information on water |
4d. detailed or confidential tribal information on water |
| 5. air |
5a. national or regional data on air |
5b. regional or district data on air |
5c. tribal information on air |
5d. detailed or confidential tribal information on air |
| 6. special places |
6a. limited information on special places, cultural sites |
6b. regional and district information on special places, cultural and historic sites |
6c. tribal information on special places, cultural and historic sites (such as archaeologocal sites) |
6d. detailed family and tribal information on special places, cultural and historic sites (such as archaeological sites) |
| 7. sacred sites |
7a. little or no information at the national or regional level |
7b. regional and district information on some sacred sites |
7c. tribal information on sacred sites (such as burial grounds) |
7d. detailed family and tribal information on sacred sites (such as burial grounds) |
| 8. metaphysical |
8a. no information at the national level |
8b. no information at the regional or district level |
8c. tribal information on metaphysical (spiritual, cosmology) information |
8d. detailed family and tribal information on metaphysical (spiritual, cosmology) information |
Each piece of information recorded, is referenced to a source or several sources, whether it be a person (Māori elder), book, archive or map, and references are coded appropriately for database entry.
Once organized, referenced and entered into the GIS, the information can be spatially represented as a series of GIS layers (see figure 4). Each layer has different levels of detail, sensitivity and confidentiality which all determine the degree of restricted access at each level.
Sensitive Information
Information that is too sensitive or confidential to store in a GIS is linked via a database directory to an individual person. This allows for additional information to be obtained from an alternative knowledge source. Some options are:
- recording the information as silent or concealed files, linked to a GIS database or a map;
- recording the information as an overlay, such as a grid network, which does not identify the actual position or location of restricted or sensitive information such as sacred sites; and
- setting up a directory, which can direct the inquirer, via a Māori organization, such as a Māori tribal organization, to an individual (ie a Māori elder), for answers to particular questions.
By following these options, highly sensitive or confidential information can be displayed as a label on a map, or simply flagged in the GIS as a sensitive or restricted area, directing the inquirer to another information source (see figure 5).
Database Structure and Cultural Sensitivity
Although the methods outlined in this article are still experimental, they provide insight into what is required to develop culturally appropriate GIS tools, and demonstrate the need to take into account both the sensitivity and the confidentiality of the information. These factors determine the final nature and form of the structure of the GIS database and are relevant wherever property rights and confidentiality of data is a primary concern.
Your feedback or comments about any of the material on this, or related, pages is welcomed. Please feel free to contact Garth Harmsworth Email
Page last updated: Friday, September 14, 2001