Indigenous values and GIS: a method and a framework
Garth Harmsworth
1
Email 
(Ngaati Tuuwharetoa, Te Arawa)
1 Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research, Private Bag 11052, Palmerston North, New Zealand
[Reference as: Harmsworth, G. (1998) Indigenous values and GIS: a method and a framework Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, Netherlands organisation for international cooperation in higher education (Nuffic), 6(3).]
Abstract In New Zealand, geographic information systems (GIS) are becoming increasingly important in all areas of resource management and environmental planning. There is growing interest among the Māori , the indigenous people of New Zealand, in the use of GIS to help them achieve some of their goals and aspirations. This article describes recent efforts to identify Māori values which are part of Māori traditional knowledge (maatauranga Māori ). It then presents a method and framework for incorporating these values into GIS tools.
The Māori , the indigenous people of New Zealand, make up 14% of the country's total population of 3.7 million. Close to three quarters of Māori (Hapi 1996) have a strong sense of belonging to regional or geographically concentrated iwi (tribes) and hapuu (sub-tribes). Land, water, and air are central to Māori life and values, and they regard themselves as kaitiaki, or guardians of all natural resources (see figure 1 and figure 2). The rights of the Māori people to their lands, estates, forests, fisheries and everything else they hold dear, including language and natural resources (see figure 3), are laid down in the Treaty of Waitangi (1840). According to present legal requirements, Māori values must be taken into account in land-use planning. However, the scarcity and sensitivity of the information on Māori values, as well as the issue of confidentiality, have made it difficult to meet these requirements.
This, in combination with the need to record vast amounts of spatial information related to historic land grievances, has led to a growing interest in the development of GIS tools geared specifically to the Māori .
GIS and indigenous knowledge
The advantages of using geographic information systems (GIS) and knowledge-based systems (KBS) to document indigenous knowledge have been described by Tabor and Hutchinson (1994) and Gonzalez (1995). Applications at the local level have been documented by Lawas and Luning (1996), while Marozas (1991) has examined how GIS are being used in American Indian land and water rights litigation. Madsen (1994) has provided interesting examples of the potential power of GIS and remote sensing for the exploitation of indigenous peoples, particularly by non-indigenous groups. Examples from both New Zealand (Ihaka M, pers.comm.; Māori GIS Conference 1996; Harmsworth 1995, 1997a, b) and Canada (Anderson et al. 1993) demonstrate that where indigenous peoples develop and employ GIS tools, they are able to add their own cultural imprint to existing applications. Moreover, such tools complement the indigenous knowledge systems traditionally used to store and transfer knowledge and information, whereby an important role is reserved for the relationship with individuals, places, cultural activities, experience and the spoken word.
Maatauranga Māori
In a traditional context, maatauranga Māori (Buck 1949; Best 1924a,b) can be defined as 'the knowledge, comprehension or understanding of everything visible and invisible existing in the universe' (Williams 1997). Maatauranga Māori , which involves observing, experiencing, studying, and understanding the world from an indigenous cultural perspective, is often equated with 'wisdom'.
In Māori society, the transfer of knowledge has always involved expert individuals, tohunga, and institutions, waananga. The tohunga were trained to accurately recall elements of knowledge and to organize them systematically, for purposes of further dissemination (Williams 1997). Under the influence of the European colonists, this system gradually declined and the recording, collection and dissemination of maatauranga Māori increasingly took other forms, such as written textual documents, archives, drawings, and paper maps. This process was promoted by the authorities, culminating in the Tohunga Suppression Act in 1907, which essentially prohibited tohunga from making use of their skills. Over the last 20 years, however, the Māori have begun to realize what a wealth of knowledge is in danger of disappearing forever on the death of Māori elders. These kaumaatua have reliable traditional knowledge related to cultural activities and experiences associated with specific local areas or sites. Thus there has been a resurgence of interest on the part of the Māori in recording traditional knowledge, particularly at the local or community level, and using new technologies to make aspects of traditional knowledge available to future generations is seen as an attractive option. In the last ten years, as access to computers has increased, they have taken an interest in developing computerized databases to store and organize information on Māori values and maatauranga Māori .
Māori values
The expression 'Māori values', which is generally used interchangeably with the term maatauranga Māori , is defined as 'instruments through which Māori people experience and make sense of the world' (Marsden 1988). However, in the present study we found it useful to use the term Māori values as a subset of maatauranga Māori , in order to emphasize the special relationship which Māori communities have, or have had, with specific sites or areas and, where possible, to identify such sites and areas. Māori values are described here as historic, cultural, spiritual, and biophysical; often they are expressed in a spatial or geographic context.
Method and framework
The present research, which made use of participatory methods involving a number of Māori organizations and individuals in New Zealand, established a number of culturally acceptable methods for recording, organizing and making available information on Māori values in a textual and computerized form (Harmsworth 1995, 1997b). All such information was classified according to specific geographic tribal areas (ranging in size from 500 km 2 to 5000 km 2 ). This produced models linking traditional knowledge -- often in both oral and textual form -- to GIS and multi-media systems. These models made it possible to store information on Māori values (see table 1) and biophysical information, for the benefit of environmental management planning, while protecting confidentiality and addressing intellectual property rights. Before making use of GIS technology, all information was recorded and organized within a framework (see table 2).
| Type of information | Examples |
| Historic places, and tribal landmarks | Fortified villages, hills, rocks, rivers |
| Cultural and social sites | Sites such as "marae" which exist today |
| Ancestral sites | Traditional land tenure, historic tracks |
| Archaeological sites | Cooking sites, tools, weapons, artefacts |
| Sacred sites | Historic burial sites, sacred battle grounds |
| Indigenous place names | Correcting the spelling and adding placenames to maps, recording knowledge/ histories about indigenous placenames |
| Biophysical resources | Landforms, soils, flora and fauna, water quality, geothermal and coastal resources |
| Special plants, special types of trees | Plants used for weaving, wood for carving, traditional medicines |
Table 1. Recorded information on Māori values
A framework for enhancing the use of indigenous knowledge is discussed in Mathias (1995). In the present study, information pertaining to each geographic area was organized and arranged within the framework shown in table 2.
On the y-axis the information was classified according to eight main groups, although certain information may appear in more than one group. In general, the lower the number, the more sensitive the information (1-8). On the x-axis information is arranged according to its confidentiality and detail, and is designated as national, regional, local/community, and individual levels. Along the x-axis, from left to right, the information becomes increasingly more detailed, confidential and personal; greater importance is placed on property rights; and access to information becomes restricted. The location within the framework indicates the type and special attributes of the knowledge, and determines whether the information may be transferred to more general levels for use by outside agencies.
| 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 on vegetation and land use | 1b. regional or district data on vegetation and land use | 1c. local information on vegetation types | 1d. plant uses, plant varieties, medicinal plants, plants for weaving etc. |
| 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, fishing grounds etc. |
| 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, traditional knowledge on soils and cultivation, muds/dyes for weaving etc. |
| 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 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 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 archaeological sites) | 6d. detailed or confidential information on special places, cultural and historic sites |
| 7. sacred sites | 7a. little or no information at the national or regional level | 7b. regional and district information on some sacred sites (generalised information) | 7c. tribal information on sacred sites (such as burial grounds) | 7d. detailed or confidential information on sacred sites (such as burial grounds) |
| 8. metaphysical | 8a. little or no information at the national level | 8b. no information at the regional or district level | 8c. tribal information on metaphysical information (spiritual, cosmological) | 8d. detailed or confidential metaphysical information (such as spiritual, cosmological) |
Table 2. A matrix framework for recording information on Māori values
Suitable GIS database structures have been designed to accomodate the setup described above. Once information is stored, links are provided between information at the national level and information accessible at the local or community level; the latter is likely to be detailed and confidential, requiring some form of restricted or protected access. Each piece of information recorded is referenced to an original source or sources, such as a person, book, archive or map, and all references are appropriately coded for database entry.
Once information is classified and stored in the framework it can be spatially represented in the form of layers (see figure 4). Each layer is characterized by different levels of detail, sensitivity and confidentiality, which together determine the degree of access at each level.
 |
Figure 4: GIS layers and confidential sub-layers. |
Knowledge directories
Information too sensitive or confidential to store in a GIS is linked via a database directory to an individual person. This allows additional information to be obtained from an alternative knowledge source. Some of the available options are shown in table 3.
| Type of information | Examples |
| (1) Silent or concealed files | Recording the information in an archive or filing sytstem, linked to a GIS database or a map. |
(2) Overlay or grid to flag sensitive areas |
Recording the information for example as a grid network, which does not identify the actual position or location of confidential or sensitive information such as sacred sites. |
(3) Link to books maps, etc. |
Setting up a directory to direct the enquirer to associated knowledge in books and maps. |
(4) Link to people such as Māori elders |
Setting up a directory to direct an enquirer, via a Māori organisation or contact, to an individual for answers to particular questions and associated traditional knowledge. |
Table 3. Example of options for a knowledge directory
By following the options in table 3, highly sensitive or confidential information can be displayed in the form of a label on a map, alternatively, it can be simply flagged in the GIS as a sensitive or restricted area and the enquirer directed to another information source. This latter option relies on the availability of people with accurate traditional knowledge. Sadly, traditional indigenous knowledge is diminishing at an alarming rate as the population ages (Maundu 1995).
Discussion
Although the methods described above are still in the experimental stage, they provide insight into what is required in order to develop culturally appropriate GIS tools. In an increasingly knowledge-based and technologically advanced world, they underline the need to take into account intellectual property rights, sensitivity, confidentiality, and links to other non-computerized knowledge-based systems. A great deal of traditional indigenous knowledge has already been irretreivably lost in New Zealand, and with the ageing of those in the indigenous population with strong links to the past, we are rapidly running out of time. Society must make clear what value it places on this information from a traditional or indigenous source.
There is enormous potential for the use of indigenous knowledge to enhance our understanding of the environment, underpin culturally appropriate development opportunities, and provide a more holistic and integrated perspective for planning and policy in the twenty-first century.
I hope that GIS and the methods sketched here will be of some use in furthering those aims.
References
Anderson, M; Hill, S; and R. Wavey (1993) 'GIS as a bridge between cultures', GIS World. 8pp.
Best, E. (1924a) Māori Religion and Mythology, Dominion Museum Bulletin No. 10, Wellington: Board of Māori Ethnological Research and Dominion Museum.
Best, E. (1924b) The Māori As He Was, 2nd Edition, Wellington: Dominion Museum.
Buck, Sir Peter: Te Rangi Hiroa. (1949) The Coming of the Māori . Wellington: Māori Purposes Fund Board, and Whitcombe & Tombs.
Durie, M. (1996) Maatauranga Māori : Iwi and the Crown. unpublished discussion paper. 1/9/96. 5pp.
Hapi, R. (1996) 'Allocation of Māori Fisheries Resources.' Paper presented at the National Māori GIS conference, GIS Māori : Mapping Māori Land and Resource Aspirations. Park Royal Hotel, Wellington, 28th June 1996. Hosted by Critchlow Associates. 8pp.
Gonzalez, R. M. (1995) KBS, GIS and documenting indigenous knowledge. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 3 (1).
Harmsworth, G. R. (1995) Māori values for land-use planning: Discussion Document. Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research unpublished report. 118p.
Harmsworth, G. R. (1997a) Māori values for land-use planning. Broadsheet Newsletter of the New Zealand Association of Resource Management, February 1997: 37-52.
Harmsworth, G. R. (1997b) Māori values and GIS: The New Zealand Experience. GIS Asia Pacific: The Geographic Technology Publication for the Asia Pacific Region. April 1997: 40-43.
Ihaka, Matu. pers.comm. Te Ruunanga o Ngaati Porou, Gisborne, New Zealand.
Lawas, C. M. and H. A. Luning (1996) Farmers knowledge and GIS. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 4 (1).
Madsen, W. (1994) Protecting Indigenous peoples privacy from Eyes in the Sky. In: H. J.Onsrud, (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Law and Information Policy for Spatial Databases. Tempe, Arizona: Centre for the Study of Law, Science, and Technology, Arizona State University College of Law.
Māori GIS conference Wellington (1996) GIS Māori : Mapping Māori Land and Resource Aspirations, 28th June, 1996, Wellington. Hosted by Critchlow Associates Limited, New Zealand.
Marozas B. A. (1991) The role of Geographic Information Systems in American Indian land and water rights litigation. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 15 (3): 77-93.
Marsden, M. (1988) The Natural World and Natural Resources. Māori values systems and perspectives. Resource Management Law Reform working paper no. 29, Part A. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
Mathias, E. (1995) Framework for enhancing the use of indigenous knowledge. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 3 (2).
Maundu, P. (1995) Methodology for collecting and sharing indigenous knowledge:a case study. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 3 (2).
Tabor. J. A. and C. Hutchinson (1994) Using indigenous knowledge, remote sensing and GIS for sustainable Development. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 2 (1): 2-6.
Williams, D. (1997) Maatauranga Māori and Taonga: The nature and extent of Treaty rights held by iwi and hapuu: (I) Indigenous flora and fauna; (II) Cultural hertitage objects; (III) Values traditional knowledge; Auckland University. Waitangi Tribunal report for the Wai 262 claim. 149pp.
Acknowledgements
For the past three years the Māori values for land use planning project (C09611) has been funded by the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science, and Technology (FRST). All those iwi, hapuu, whaanau, and individuals who have contributed to the project to date are gratefully acknowledged and thanked for their time, support, and ideas. The assistance of the people of Rangitaane; Ngaati Porou; Ngaati Tuuwharetoa; Te Whaanau a Apanui; and Ngai Tahu is gratefully acknowledged. I wish to thank Hamish Heke, GIS specialist, Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research Ltd., for his help, patience, understanding which made a very real contribution to the project.
Thanks also to the Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher Education (Nuffic) ( http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm) for enabling the reproduction of this paper on our site. Nuffic host a great site offering several integrated products and services on indigenous knowledge for development.
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