4.3 Article

Ko Tangonge Te Wai: Indigenous and Technical Data Come Together in Restoration Efforts

期刊

ECOHEALTH
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 623-632

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10393-016-1170-4

关键词

Maori; Indigenous knowledge; Water; Colonisation; Treaty settlement; Restoration

资金

  1. James Henare Maori Research Centre
  2. Health Research Council of New Zealand
  3. NgaPae o te Maramatanga Maori Centre of Research Excellence
  4. Te Wai Maori Trustee

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Aotearoa New Zealand, Maori aspirations around land and water conflict with settler interests. As indigenous people, Maori struggle to enact agency over resources, despite Treaty (Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an 1840 agreement between Maori and the crown) settlement processes returning some lands. Returns are complex since changes wrought by dispossession may be extreme, requiring multiple stakeholder engagements. Tangonge, a heavily modified wetland, in northern Aotearoa New Zealand has been the subject of iwi (tribe or tribes) claims since the 1890s. Reparation processes have returned significant areas surrounding Tangonge to key iwi, Te Rarawa and Ngai Takoto, who formed the Tangonge Restoration Group to plan management and restoration. The vision of the iwi is to restore Tangonge as a wetland to rekindle usage by manawhenua (people with demonstrated authority and tribal links to the area in question) and local communities. However, perceived Maori privilege, distrust in Maori praxis and fear of alienation of stakeholders mean the situation presents challenges as well as opportunities. Understanding that various parties view knowledge in particular ways, the Restoration Group sought to juxtapose technical data and manawhenua knowledge about Tangonge. Hydrology findings and local aspirations were aligned to produce ideas for actions that encompassed the broad concerns. This integration of knowledge provides strategic steps for working with administrative authorities who have historical and ongoing interests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据