9 Enhancing cultural diversity and equity in spatial planning systems in Aotearoa New Zealand with He Awa Whiria

Ka tangi te titi           The muttonbird calls
Ka tangi te kaka        The parrot calls
Ka tangi hoki ahau    I call too
Tihei mauri ora         Behold there is life

Introduction

A reminder of coloniality is that hegemonic planning practices have systemic underlying limitations. Organisational and institutional barriers persist in the context of inclusivity and equity in decision-making processes. This can jeopardise potential efforts to galvanise mātauranga Māori in city-making processes and outcomes, as well as in the expression of local knowledge systems in cities (Barry and Thompson-Fawcett, 2020). Overall, this has wide repercussions for Māori communities and their wellbeing, as well as for other cultural and ethnic minority communities living in urban Aotearoa New Zealand (Olin et al., 2022). This chapter explores possibilities that could enhance cultural equity and diversity in spatial planning systems in urban New Zealand, by reflecting on interconnected learnings between two research programmes. The first research programme was initiated in 2017,^[1] and aimed to co-create cultural mapping tools and the necessary methodologies to support community and tribal-led spatial planning (Jesus Dionisio et al., 2021). As presented below, this cultural mapping research programme is connected to a second programme that is focused on holistic tools and led by Māori concepts of wellbeing. The aim of the second programme is to assess and guide all-of-life-led regeneration and development across various geographical scales (Yates, 2021). Focusing on both programmes presented a myriad of opportunities and challenges, which are outlined below, and so a He Awa Whiria approach was used to articulate the connectivity, overlap, synergy and distinctiveness of the two independent streams of knowledge and practices.

We reflect on the connectivity, overlap, synergy and autonomy between mātauranga Māori and non-Indigenous knowledge systems, interacting to bring to life the research programme focused on cultural mapping. Further, the chapter draws exchangeable lessons between the two place-based cases, guided by the He Awa Whiria approach. Lastly, the connectivity between the two research programmes is presented with the same approach in the discussion, highlighting key exchangeable learnings for future research, education and practice in spatial planning.

Overall, this chapter argues that the He Awa Whiria approach can contribute to strengthening the integrity of various, independent endeavours, while diversifying possibilities with/for mātauranga Māori-led initiatives in urban New Zealand. Such understandings of ‘with/for’ are engaged within deeper understandings of care, as outlined by a number of New Zealand geographers (see Dombroski, 2018). The discussion includes a set of recommendations for future spatial planning research and practice, aimed at enhancing diversity, inclusivity and equity in urban places, neighbourhoods and cities in New Zealand.

The context of spatial planning in New Zealand

This chapter aims to enhance awareness of the importance of biculturalism, diversity and equity in urban contexts, considering both human and more-than-human geographies. Given we live in a world in which justice, diversity and the balance between the more-than-human and human are increasingly in peril, initiatives supportive of re-indigenising landscapes in cities are critical for equitable socio-ecological change. The term more-than-human, adopted in this chapter, refers to forces and agencies of the natural realm that go beyond human will, including all living beings but also natural events. In essence, the term more-than-human seeks to portray all living as well as all non-human identities that have their own agency, autonomy or sovereignty (Dombroski, 2018; White, 2020; Yates, 2021). In New Zealand, because such identities are central to an Indigenous cultural sense of identity and relatability, rivers and mountains are examples of more-than-human recognised as ‘identities’ in progressive environmental management approaches (Hutchison, 2014; Ngaha, 2014).

In a context of rapid urbanisation, we should be aware of shifting cultural and ecological demands, with attention being given to both human and more-than-human interdependent dimensions of wellbeing (Yates, 2019). Such relational understanding of wellbeing encompasses key interactions between all living things, both in cities and beyond urban boundaries (Robinson, 2014). It also highlights the relevance of strengthened engagement between communities, of their natural and ecological capitals, and the use of geospatial technologies to assist critical social and cultural shifts in ethical and equitable ways. Since the late 1970s, rapid urban migration processes in New Zealand have caused social and environmental impacts, some of which have devalued equity and diversity in urban systems. On a wider, systemic scale, this has repercussions for tangata whenua (Indigenous people of the land), urban Māori communities and tangata Tiriti (non-Māori partners to the Treaty – that is, Pākehā, Pacific and migrant communities, including Asian, Middle Eastern and African minorities).

The rapidly diversifying community demands in cities illustrate the emergent need for culturally reflective spatial planning policies and practices. This sets the context in which co-created cultural-mapping tools can play a critical role toward equitable, deliberative systems (as defined by Hendriks, 2017) and affect how Indigenous, bicultural and multi-cultural communities navigate decision-making processes. Beyond the city boundaries, cultural diversity and representation are also at risk, emphasising the importance of tribal-led mapping initiatives (Tapsell, 2014) that are often values-driven and can bring inclusivity to the greater community. In the wider arena of Indigenous planning, cultural mapping and geospatial science are proving to be important to support tribal groups throughout planning processes affecting their ancestral lands and territories.

This chapter is centred on urban contexts – inclusive of periurban and rapidly ‘urbanising’ areas – as a primary geographic focus. A critical focus is placed on spatial planning systems, which have historically enforced territorial power distributions in New Zealand. In the context of planning practice and education, Māori-led spatial planning has thrived through various stages: from assimilation to integration, to further re-centring the indigenisation of systems (Matunga, 2013; Ruru and Kohu-Morris, 2020; Yates, 2018). In the context of bicultural spatial planning, more needs to be achieved toward the recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems and perspectives, which have the potential to contribute to diverse and equitable cities.

The value of the He Awa Whiria approach is that it can guide reforms in spatial planning education, research and practice, to improve processes and tangible outcomes for Māori and the wider community. This chapter examines a few challenges in employing the He Awa Whiria approach to enhance cultural equity and diversity in future spatial planning processes. For this, we take a culturally reflective lens. Spatial planning statutes, such as the Resource Management Act 1991 and Local Government Act 2002, recognise the Treaty of Waitangi, while defining various roles and representatives in the community. This is relevant in the context of power distributions between government, Māori and the wider community. In practice, the representation of ‘communities’ within deliberative processes is left to the discretion of councillors and planners, and not formally structured in mainstream spatial planning (Jolly and Thompson-Fawcett, 2021). Genuine inclusivity of mātauranga Māori in spatial planning systems, however, makes way for cultural equity and diversity, with shared benefits and responsibilities for everyone. Genuine inclusivity includes those consistently on the margins of participation processes. As highlighted by Johnston (2018), the perspectives of consistently marginalised communities can support Indigenous and feminist approaches. In practical spatial planning outcomes, it is critical to create more acceptance for all sentient forms of being – human and more-than-human – with the aim of creating biodiverse, inclusive, equitable and diverse cities.

Ethically engaged transitions, from spatial planning to transformative practices, require more than science (Macfarlane and Macfarlane, 2019). Science and humanities should be considered essential threads of the same fabric for transformative change toward inclusive, diverse and equitable processes and outcomes in multiple systems (for example, housing, transport and energy, social and cultural amenities, and ecological networks. See Olin et al., 2022). Culture is an essential dimension that can unlock the potential of inclusive, diverse and equitable urban landscapes and processes. However, one of the underlying challenges is that the mainstream planning system in New Zealand is largely influenced by its colonial past, rooted in English town-planning traditions that often compartmentalise knowledge and processes (Yates, 2021). As a result, the mutual benefits of various planning endeavours are often challenging to measure, particularly in rapidly changing cities, so their potential to transform and activate social and ecological equity processes remains mostly untapped.

The cultural mapping research

This section describes the employment of He Awa Whiria in the programme titled ‘Map-based tools for community and tribal-led bicultural planning in small and medium settlements in New Zealand’, initiated in late 2017. Further, this section explains how the research perspectives braided with traditional knowledge and aspirations, while aiming to enhance Treaty-led partnerships for/with the co-creators and end-users of the research, and their wider communities.

The research aimed to co-create map-based tools to assist Māori communities to lead planning processes in collaboration with planning authorities, experts and the wider sector. In the wake of rapid urban intensification, there is a vital need for ethical approaches in spatial development to allow for more initiatives led by Māori values, knowledge and ways of doing and knowing. Such tools and processes offer valuable possibilities for place-based communities working for culturally led regeneration and urban development.

Bicultural co-governance presents a set of new ethical and policy risks and challenges, but also offers vital opportunities to redress past injustices in the realm of deliberative spatial planning (Dionisio and Macfarlane, 2021). Cultural reflectivity, ethics and care are essential dimensions to be considered while employing He Awa Whiria approaches in both theoretical and practical interventions. This is key when interfacing distinct streams of knowledge, while uplifting culturally nuanced dimensions like ethics and care (Dombroski, 2018; Macfarlane and Macfarlane, 2018; Yates, 2019). While the authors recognise that theoretical and practical considerations in employing He Awa Whiria approaches should be considered hand in hand, this chapter demonstrates key aspects of employing such an approach as a means to nurture Treaty partnerships in the context of spatial planning.

The He Awa Whiria approach was employed to guide community partnerships, and to facilitate the co-creation of cultural mapping tools in two case studies – one in the South Island and one in the North Island. The key institutional partners included the Geospatial Research Institute Toi Hangarau^[2] at University of Canterbury (UC), and two groups of Māori representatives: Ngāi Tūāhuriri representatives in the Waimakariri District of the South Island (where the case study was located); and Te Tatau o Te Arawa^[3] and later Te Manatōpū Hau Kāinga o Ōhinemutu^[4] in Rotorua in the North Island.

Genuine science engages in opening equitable and culturally diverse debates, in which contradictions – or various versions of one same (yet different) truth or reality – may co-exist (Sepie, 2018). As such, our research was never aimed at dissecting, evaluating, or comparing mātauranga Māori to other knowledge streams and networks in the context of spatial justice or planning. Recognition should be paid to mātauranga Māori amid diverse, traditional ecological knowledge systems, in continuously pushing for more equitable, diverse and inclusive systems. For the communities in the case studies, the application of mainstream Western science in today’s planning systems (and their educational and training systems) has generally led to little significant change in peoples’ lives. Often, mainstream planning is limited in opening space for the recognition of various ways of knowing, learning, teaching and being. In consequence, this can hinder meaningful, place-based impact. In this context, we adopt Cresswell’s (2014) definition of place, which includes location, locale and sense of place; in short, ‘location’ refers to the actual coordinates, ‘locale’ to the environmental attributes of a place, and ‘sense of place’ is shaped by the relationship that people have with spaces through time.

The research methodology employed was guided by the He Awa Whiria approach, as a means to assert mātauranga Māori rights in the research development, practice and milestones. This was vital to support non-Indigenous capability enhancement and learning exchangeability with Māori. The He Awa Whiria approach served to recognise diverse perspectives contributing to each of the knowledge streams, with a shared understanding that each of the streams forms a networked web of knowledge, resources and sub-streams, with their own integrity and autonomy (Macfarlane et al., 2015). In addition, the He Awa Whiria approach was employed as a practical guide to structure collective reflections focused on ethics, raising awareness among the team on the integrity of each stream of knowledge, culture, terminology and language. This was mostly achieved in workshops, collaborative sessions and wānanga (discussions), as supported by the Treaty partners. A way in which the He Awa Whiria approach was evidenced was through our intellectual agreements, which recognise mātauranga Māori and non-Indigeneous knowledge, and the specific ways in which they braid to bring cultural mapping tools to life.

An essential way to honour the Treaty is to consider the statutory position of Māori in the realm of spatial, deliberative governance and planning. In essence, the cultural mapping research programme is concerned with developing co-creation methodologies tailored for/with each of the case study’s Treaty partners, to advance tools and methods in the arena of cultural mapping and geoscience. With a participatory planning lens aimed at equity and diversity, the tools and methods focused on the connections between oral histories of place, environment and people. This body of work aims to assist Māori, in collaboration with the wider range of city-making actors, in processes that seek to enhance Indigenous knowledge aspirations and values that can benefit everyone. In essence, decolonisation of deliberative spatial planning and governance can bring a multitude of benefits for the entire community (Elkington et al., 2020), a win-win for wider society.

The urban wellbeing research

He Awa Whiria approach is relevant for the second research programme, Ngā Tohu Kāinga-Ora: Mauri Ora and Urban Wellbeing. This research is funded and supported by the National Science Challenge 11 He Kāinga Whakamana Tangata Whakamana Taiao: Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities. A background context is the urgency of city-led urban transformation at this time of ecological emergency and rapid urbanisation, with relevant impacts for Māori and wider urban communities. In the following sections we discuss a later research collaboration with Te Tatau o Te Arawa, involving the development of a place-based compass designated ‘Mauri Ora Compass’, an urban-planning and transition tool, which emerged from a co-creation kit produced in earlier research (see Yates, 2019). The compass is a system- change tool designed to inspire cities centred in the concept of mauri (life force), directly rejecting industrial modernism and linear, colonial thinking that separates human from more-than-human. It is a visual tool that helps communities to articulate and navigate towards a more regenerative and relational approach to living systems. The authors worked with Te Tatau o Te Arawa, who used a compass kit to develop their own specific housing and neighbourhood compasses and implement their 2050 housing vision centred on the concept of mauri ora (holistic wellbeing).

The application of He Awa Whiria in the research programmes

The design of co-creation methodologies required cultural reflectivity and a careful consideration of ethics, to ensure that the research outcomes could make a meaningful impact in the community. Guided by kaupapa Māori research principles and action research, the steps involved defining – and reiteratively, redefining – the aims and methodological approaches of the project with Treaty partners. Most importantly, this semi-structured, reiterative, semi-fluid process aimed to support Treaty partners in interfacing mātauranga Māori with non-Indigenous streams of knowledge or practice, in the realm of urban and social regeneration. From early in the research programmes, community partners voiced important ethical concerns about interfacing various levels of data access to the public, planning teams and consultants involved in the spatial planning arena. This presented challenges for data protection and territorial sovereignties, and questions of access to which data, by whom, when and for what purposes. Such challenges are also seen in cultural mapping and geoscience. The costs and benefits involved in each step of the research, along with longitudinal impacts in the community, must be considered equally. The principles of the Treaty (protection, partnership and participation) served as an ontological guide for the development of a co-creation methodology. Overall, the methods sought to ensure meaningful partnerships, reflect various ways of knowing and doing, the protection of Indigenous data, and participation of tangata whenua and the wider community.

Practical application: The cultural mapping research

Concerns about the authenticity of approaches to biculturalism led to the employment of He Awa Whiria in both of the cultural mapping research case studies, to support the conceptualisation of our research practices. This highlighted place-based mātauranga Māori and avoid knowledge as two independent, yet interconnected, streams of knowledge, which can be braided for mutual benefit. In the South Island case study, the practical application of the He Awa Whiria approach supported the conceptualisation of research practices with the Treaty partner, Ngāi Tūāhuriri. This contributed to enhancing the recognition of how mātauranga Māori contributed to strengthening team learning and capability building for restorative planning, as envisioned by Ngāi Tūāhuriri. More specifically, mātauranga Ngāi Tūāhuriri (Ngāi Tūāhuriri knowledge) is a place-based knowledge system centred on the Ngāi Tūāhuriri tribal region, which includes Christchurch. In the North Island case study, the research engagement with the community started with a hui (meeting) in Rotorua in early December 2017, with attendance from the Rotorua Lakes Council, Te Tatau o Te Arawa, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Ngāti Whakaue representatives and researchers from UC. This partnership evolved into a verbal agreement and mutual understanding with the Geospatial Research Institute to work collaboratively with Te Manatōpū Hau Kāinga o Ōhinemutu for the implementation stages of the research. The He Awa Whiria approach was employed to assert the integrity of mātauranga Māori in the research leadership and raise awareness about its diverse, ranging web of contributions, in the process of co-creating a meaningful tool for Ōhinemutu village. This meant that all dimensions of the project were shared and mutually agreed with the Treaty partners, enabling an equalised distribution of powers in research processes, methods, budgets, resources, capability building and achievements.

In both collaborative partnerships of the cultural mapping tool research programme, He Awa Whiria guided the assertion of the integrity of mātauranga Māori in the research leadership, as well as in the implementation directives in each of the specific Indigenous geographies, locations and scales of relevance. The various geographical foci running through the case studies express distinct organisational community networks in place, as well as differing place-based knowledge in representation, nomination and appointment practices, and tribal tikanga. The process of finding the right representatives was seminal in building each of the Treaty partnership teams in the research programme, and was a practical demonstration of whakawhanaungatanga (building relationships). As such, Māori values can be considered to orient practices to develop and nurture He Awa Whiria approaches in spatial planning.

In order for a single piece of collaborative work to have meaningful impact for all Treaty partners, the process of defining the ethics of the project should reflect equitable values to equalise power distributions and accrued benefits. Equitable distributions of contribution and benefit among each of the parties should be considered, with a co-defined understanding of distinct roles and contributions to the research programme, and more specifically in the co-creation processes. In the context of these research programmes, this consideration served to map relevant human and organisational resources and relationships that operated interdependently to bring collaborative capability to life. Furthermore, the approach served to direct implementation pathways and planning systems involved in the practical applications of this collaborative work. The creation of Te Manatōpū Hau Kāinga o Ōhinemutu to assist the development of this research partnership is an example of this.

A functional component of the cultural mapping tool, which illustrates how He Awa Whiria braids through the research programme, consists of a generic atua (deity) reference that was incorporated into the architecture of the prototype tools in both case studies. Atua are deities, spiritual guardians responsible for various domains of the natural world. Classificatory structures based around atua have been developed by some Māori entities for their environmental priorities and outcomes (Jefferies and Kennedy, 2009). Concepts derived from atua have been used to frame iwi management plans and cultural-impact assessments. A generic reference to atua was a means to categorise cultural narratives and embed te ao Māori into both prototypes. As presented in Walker et al. (2021), cultural narratives can connect to various atua, referring to Māori mythology. Both research partners saw the value in using an atua outline to help interface Māori and scientific streams of knowledge. However, they also expressed desires to create their own bespoke kaupapa Māori, place-based conceptualisations, using alternative or additional atua, or around te taiao (the natural environment).

Practical application: The urban wellbeing research

The research programme Ngā Tohu Kāinga-Ora: Mauri Ora and Urban Wellbeing includes the co-creation of a cross-cultural urban planning instrument – the Mauri Ora Compass which is a braiding, or interfacing, tool. The compass visualisation shows two key settings – an outer global and inner urban setting. In the outer rings of the compass, key planetary wellbeing boundaries are represented as holistic living systems. This braids different scientific findings about planetary boundaries, in terms of what is required for holistic wellbeing – stable temperatures, water cycles, ecological system stability – with holistic, living-system wellbeing emerging from te ao Māori, including mauri ora and hapori ora (social wellbeing).

In the centre of the compass, a set of core directions is grouped under five categories: tangata oranga (people and wellbeing), ōhanga oranga (circular bio-economy), paneke oranga (active and zero-carbon transport), kāinga oranga (regenerative buildings and neighbourhoods) and whenua oranga with wai oranga (ecological regeneration). These areas seek to articulate the core navigational points Te Tatau o Te Arawa want to use in emerging housing and neighbourhood developments, to achieve their Te Arawa 2050 Vision.^[5] Each of the action areas has urban, holistic-wellbeing actions that Te Tatau hopes to see enacted in Rotorua and Te Arawa ancestral lands.

The compass tool represents a holistic braiding of contemporary urban science, and both ancient and contemporary Indigenous knowledge systems focused on living well in place. We can understand the compass tool as something of a He Awa Whiria interfacing tool, allowing community groups to move between urban transition/transformation and ancient Indigenous knowledge that better understands the integral meshwork of mauri inherent in all viable living systems. The compass tool can help with interfacing knowledge systems and facilitate equitable decision-making processes across both a postcolonial and Indigenous culture, with a strategic political intention to centre Indigenous ways of knowing for holistic wellbeing. The compass seeks to disrupt colonial frameworks, by orienting decision-making towards mauri ora, rather than abstract cost-benefit analyses or the linear, take-make-waste economies. In a way, this reflects the He Awa Whiria approach, because it aims to return the benefit of the tool to Māori and the wider community.

Key lessons from the cultural mapping research

This section aims to reflect on key points of connectivity, overlap and distinctiveness of both case studies, highlighting exchangeable lessons across New Zealand. Overall, the employment of He Awa Whiria approaches in our research was widely influenced by tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori in the geographies and organisational networks of each case study. Key methodological approaches and outcomes of the research can be applicable to various geographical contexts, also beyond New Zealand. As discussed in this section, there are relevant conclusions that can be drawn in the context of employing He Awa Whiria approaches and/or various Indigenous concepts to guide co-creation processes within participatory planning and deliberative governance. In the arena of cultural mapping outlined by Tapsell (2014, p 55), research outcomes should include a co-created set of collaborative practices that can assist communities with the adaptation and activation of tools and approaches in various geographical contexts.

To date, the tools co-created in the scope of the cultural mapping research were developed to a prototypical level, focusing on open-source technologies and resources. While these tools are part of a range of incremental contributions made possible thanks to Treaty partnerships, further developments can assist tangata whenua and diverse place-based communities in the uptake of the research outcomes – particularly tribal authorities and place-based community representatives who are invested in culturally led regenerative processes in the arena of spatial planning.

In the South Island case study, the revitalisation of Ngāi Tūāhuriri ancestral lands was the key focus of the co-created Tuahiwi tool, while also seeking to connect whenua (land) and whānau. With cultural mapping, archivism and land-management approaches aimed at supporting whānau, the Tuahiwi tool presents functionalities that enable more accountancy and transparency of land-management processes, connecting land trustees to a wide network of stakeholders who provide a range of services in the land. Since the tool has been co-created with Ngāi Tūāhuriri representatives, it supports tribal engagements toward socio-ecological and economic restorative projects centred in Tuahiwi village and other significant ancestral lands across the tribal region.

In the South Island, Tuahiwi village, as well as the Ngāi Tūāhuriri region, are demonstrative of the effects of urbanisation, as they are facing increasing pressures in the realm of spatial planning. Co-creation methodologies used to generate place-focused tools can offer relevant possibilities to a wider diversity of tribal, local, place-based communities facing similar challenges in the realm of spatial and environmental planning. While Tuahiwi village is located in the outskirts of urban growth, there is an increasing encroachment of contiguous suburban developments onto the Tuahiwi reserve. This, too, may resonate with other tribal and place-based communities in New Zealand and in the Pacific who are advocating for socio-ecological justice.

In the North Island case study, Ōhinemutu village, in Rotorua, is an exemplar of a traditional Māori papakāinga (village) that is on the fringe of rapid urbanisation and facing increasing pressures for regeneration. Recognising the possibilities and challenges of interfacing place-based mātauranga Māori and mainstream planning processes, Te Manatōpū Hau Kāinga o Ōhinemutu was the co-creator of the cultural mapping tool created in this research programme. As an incorporated society leading several urban-restoration endeavours in Ōhinemutu village, Te Manatōpū Hau Kāinga o Ōhinemutu is also the key end-user of the cultural mapping tool, designated Te Kete o Ōhinemutu.

The partnership driving the co-creation focused on the processes and narratives running through Ōhinemutu village. However, although the tool was initially conceptualised as a geographical archive used to store cultural narratives, it morphed into becoming a set of practices as well as a tool. The tool and its engagement practices encouraged a debate amid Ngāti Whakaue and Ōhinemutu whānau, specifically on how to best record perspectives connecting various generations living in, and with connections to, the village.

Key features of the co-created tool are that it enables contributors to co-create, validate and share knowledge, cultural perspectives and lived narratives with linked geographic components. The tool can offer a point of reference to Māori communities who are striving to protect their ancestral lands from neoliberal approaches to urban development.

In the context of New Zealand, there is an important momentum to be recognised, in the sense that the government is pushing for speedier ways to intensify urbanisation, on the pretext of the housing shortage. Yet, this places ethics – not just housing quality – in tension with urgency (Olson, 2015). This state of affairs is particularly relevant to Māori culture, which risks being engulfed by neoliberal approaches to urban growth, namely market-led, unsustainable patterns.

There is a variety of institutional geospatial and cultural mapping tools available in New Zealand to support Māori land revitalisation, but the Tuahiwi and Te Kete Kōrero o Ōhinemutu tools offer points of distinctiveness. Both tools enable tribal identities to curate and manage their place-based mātauranga Māori, cultural narratives and lived experiences. They also enable layering of place-based narratives with publicly available data, such as district plans and cadastral information. These tools seek to enhance co-creation practices in spatial planning, to enable equitable pathways for robust, bidirectional dialogue between tribal and government authorities in the planning arena.

The co-created functionalities developed in this research programme have their basis in open-source code, and this can be made available to wider tribal identities and community groups who require the same or similar functionalities when building their own tools. The Tuahiwi and Te Kete Kōrero o Ōhinemutu tools are pilots in the creation of various functionalities, which can be assembled and adopted differently beyond the context of these case studies. The navigation and experience of the tools, as defined by front-end platforms, is what gives these tools their own cultural and geographical lenses. Future adaptations of such functionalities can broaden opportunities for communities to co-create their own place-based tools and practices in partnership with tribal and government authorities.

With relatable cases in New Zealand and beyond, there are critical issues in adopting geospatial technologies to assist cultural mapping and its possibilities with deliberative spatial planning. Attention should be paid to the methods and practices to enable technological and cultural transferability and prospective engagements and applications. Shaping processes to define the ethics and methods of spatial planning projects with Treaty partners is an inevitable, necessary approach. This is yet another area for future research: seeking to understand how He Awa Whiria approaches can support further learning and development in culturally engaged, reflective ethics and care, in the context of spatial planning.

Key lessons from the urban wellbeing research

In the Ngā Tohu Kāinga-Ora: Mauri Ora and Urban Wellbeing programme, Te Tatau o Te Arawa and the research team met the Rotorua Lakes Council, using the housing-level compass tool as a foundation for a wider urban compass that can centre human and more-than- human wellbeing in our ecological emergency. A key outcome has been that the council sees the value of mauri-grounded approaches, partly due to its ‘boundary object’ visualisation, which enables discussion and further development of the Mauri Ora Compass as a wellbeing tool for the wider community. An additional outcome is a more integrated approach to more-than-human wellbeing and respect for environmental entities being built into the emerging partnership. By interfacing contemporary urban practices, place-based mātauranga Māori and mauri ora, radical transformations are possible. For example, the emerging housing-development plans in Rotorua include an increased amount of living ecosystems in the neighbourhood: urban forests or green spaces, māra kai (agriculture and horticulture), swales, rain gardens and māra rōngoa (medicinal landscapes). These all increase the biodiversity of the area, which brings wellbeing to urban communities. Moreover, these outcomes also open a range of possibilities for the manifestation of He Awa Whiria approaches between people and nature, where multiple benefits and contributions are recognised within the living socioecological web of continual environmental co-creation.

Key exchangeable lessons on applying He Awa Whiria in planning research

Kia tupu – to grow
Kia hua – to prosper
Kia puāwai – to sustain

As Ngaha (2014) articulates in Maranga Mai!, mountains, rivers and various more-than-human dimensions of place are expressions of cultural identity. This makes the case for the urgency of mapping, archiving and documenting cultural narratives and oral histories – traditional and lived – particularly in places endangered by the impacts of rapid, neoliberal urbanisation processes. More important than ever, is to connect these narratives and streams of knowledge to deliberative governance. In New Zealand, cities continue to grow at the cost of Indigenous and locally engrained values, contributing to a loss of sense of place, identity and connection. As outlined by generations of Māori and Indigenous scholars (Walker, 2016), such dimensions remain seminal in future planning education, research and practice – and in the arena of environmental and urban planning, even more so.

The authors’ research highlights aspects that must be considered in the adoption and employment of He Awa Whiria approaches. First, tools, metrics and evidence-based approaches should work to strengthen, but not seek to supplant, the organisational, political and cultural perspectives influencing social constructs of place. He Awa Whiria approaches have the potential to make significant contributions in spatial planning, if the socio-technical interactions involved in the operation of tools and metrics can ethically braid with Indigenous and local knowledge, aspirations and ways of knowing. In practical terms, this means co-designing methods, budgets and intended outcomes with equalising distributions of shared power, responsibility and benefits among Treaty partners, their varied representations of the Indigenous Māori and the wider community.

Second, He Awa Whiria approaches offer the possibility to improve the equity of processes and outcomes in spatial planning and deliberative governance. In the context of New Zealand, this has implications for a wide range of sectors, including urban and environmental planning, policy, practice, education and training. When building from and for community leadership and networks, Indigenous determination and their embedded values, He Awa Whiria approaches can serve to interface the perspectives of communities and socio-demographic groups, which have been systematically marginalised out of spatial planning processes. In the case of housing affordability, spatial planning has generally had poor diversity and equity outcomes for Māori and Pacific peoples (Olin et al., 2022), with the effects of poor participatory processes being visible in housing and neighbourhood outcomes. He Awa Whiria approaches can provide reference for public–private partnership models seeking to honour the Treaty in city-making processes. Reflecting back on the key lessons, as discussed in the previous sections, He Awa Whiria should work for Māori and Pacific peoples, because it can direct equitable scenarios for everyone. An ideal culturally responsive planning system for/with Māori and Pacific peoples, can help minimise the axiological space between spatial planning practices and outcomes, opening a necessary space for more equitable pathways for ethnic and cultural minorities.

Third, He Awa Whiria can serve to instil ethics, care and reciprocity through various spatial planning interventions. This includes government and tribal agencies, as well as various other tribal and community representatives. With its own limitations, the research presented in this chapter provides an example of how He Awa Whiria can guide Treaty-led partnerships in spatial planning research and practice. Making way for equitable structures of recognition and power distribution, this approach can also serve to mediate the tensions between local knowledge networks and science, and geospatial evidence and technology, more widely. For instance, embedding He Awa Whiria to guide public debates and engagement campaigns in spatial planning would be a tangible way to enhance the inter-exchangeability between mātauranga Māori and other knowledge streams. In wider deliberative spatial planning, He Awa Whiria can be a means to cultivate trust, care and reciprocity between agencies, teams and factors that affect contemporary city-making in New Zealand. This is a way to bring awareness to the distribution of powers – as well as checking liabilities – in braiding various agendas with equity and diversity in mind. By connecting autonomous streams of work between the two programmes, He Awa Whiria approaches can demonstrate ethical engagements with the Treaty and community representatives. This can mitigate cultural taxation and enhance the possibilities for relationship building and networking between endeavours (Came et al., 2020). A strong argument in support of using He Awa Whiria to interconnect various research endeavours is also that it can mitigate risk of participation exhaustion in the context of research and tools development, and uptake in the community.

Finally, this chapter presented various applications of the He Awa Whiria approach, articulating the interconnectivity and exchangeable lessons between the two streams of knowledge running through the research programmes and case studies. In engaging with whānau and community groups seeking to adopt such spatial technologies, it remains key to recognise the distinctiveness of each programme, while also recognising the visible and intrinsic linkages between endeavours. This means that future research steps might include a mind map of interacting representations and their goals in the spatial planning. Treaty-led partnerships can support the enhancement of various programmes and endeavours in the community. This also serves to ensure key strategic alignments between aims, milestones and key outcomes with/for Māori communities, Pacific peoples and ethnic minorities.

This chapter demonstrates the various ways in which a He Awa Whiria approach served to guide various research projects in spatial planning. First, the approach was used to interface mātauranga Māori and non-Indigenous knowledge for the conceptualisation and development of the research programmes, case studies, objectives and overall community engagement practices. Second, the chapter presented two case studies in which He Awa Whiria approaches were used to examine points of interconnectivity for exchangeable lessons to various geographical contexts in contemporary, urban New Zealand. In the last section below, the focus turns to the future, in relation to the connectivity between two research programmes and overall possibilities for Indigenous-led spatial planning. As highlighted in the first part of this section, key exchangeable lessons are a necessity for culturally reflective,  reciprocal, caring and ethically engaged considerations while employing He Awa Whiria in the context of spatial planning, and in deliberative governance more extensively.

Recommendations for future research and practice

These recommendations are aimed at fostering future urban landscapes and planning systems that are equipped for cultural diversity and equity. The recommendations are for city makers (planners, educators and practitioners) as well as for Māori and urban communities who are on the not-so-straightforward journeys of social and environmental regeneration. This is an attempt to recognise some of the challenges, amid various political and economic pulls and pressures, but also to offer possibilities for future planning-policy review, education and practice.

The first recommendation to our readers is to enhance awareness on the interdisciplinary approaches that are required to develop ethical approaches that achieve urban equity and diversity. While urban equity and diversity are complex issues, a He Awa Whiria approach provides ethical ways forward. Technology and science-led narratives should not replace human and more-than-human interactions, but, rather, should seek to strengthen cultural understandings of place. Relational, human and more-than-human systems should not be taken lightly in spatial planning nor in urban regeneration, particularly in socio-ecological, indigenising contexts. The employment of He Awa Whiria approaches illustrated in this chapter shows the possible connections between urban geographies, Indigenous research, planning, education, policy and practice. Yet, there are other disciplinary angles that can offer significant contributions, particularly in the linkage between ethics, policy and culturally driven practices for community engagement.

The second recommendation is directed to researchers and practitioners interested in employing He Awa Whiria approaches in future planning research, policy and partnership. Against the backdrop of rigorous planning (as elaborated by White, 2020), the recognition of the Indigenous and traditional knowledge streams running in a community requires ethical lenses. These efforts should seek to recognise and act adequately in the spaces of community leadership and Indigenous determination. This can play a vital role in grounding He Awa Whiria as a mediation approach that seeks to reconcile, balance and strengthen processes and outcomes for social and cultural justice. This brings possibilities for city-making education and practice, as well as deliberative, participatory governance more broadly.

Third, for policy makers and city thinkers: a He Awa Whiria approach offers possibilities to recognise the binding agreement of the Treaty. This chapter illustrated various possibilities for employing He Awa Whiria to combine various knowledge streams and recognise multiple agencies and contributions. For instance, the possibility to co-design processes and methodologies to distribute powers and liabilities more equitably can serve to guide for future mediation, and partnership approaches and models. In the context of spatial planning, cultural and ethnic contexts nuance the justification for more equity, diversity and overall social and spatial justice. He Awa Whiria approaches offer ethical pathways and possibilities to combine distinct, autonomous and relevant streams of knowledge for the strengthening of overall outcomes. In the context of building kotahitanga (unity), He Awa Whiria approaches offer possibilities for organisational cohesion between communities, tribal authorities and governmental agencies.

Closing comment

He Awa Whiria approaches have the potential to transform urban landscapes and planning systems, by allowing for culturally reflective and ethically engaged, organisational interfacings. As discussed in this chapter, He Awa Whiria approaches served to interface mātauranga Māori and non-Indigenous knowledge streams, reflecting key values of the projects. Further, He Awa Whiria approaches served to orient co-creation practices with Treaty partners in the case studies. This chapter illustrates how He Awa Whiria informed our past research and practice applications in spatial planning. Looking to the future, there are certainly more possibilities for researchers and practitioners to employ He Awa Whiria approaches in this sphere, to ensure tangible ethical practices at the community level, attentive to both human and more-than-human outcomes.

References

Barry, J. & Thompson-Fawcett, M. (2020), ‘Decolonizing the boundaries between the “planner” and the “planned”: Implications of indigenous property development’, Planning Theory & Practice, 21(3), 410–25.

Came, H., O’Sullivan, D. & McCreanor, T. (2020), ‘Introducing critical Tiriti policy analysis: A new tool for anti-racism from Aotearoa New Zealand,’ European Journal of Public Health, 30(sup5): https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.674

Cresswell, T. (2014), ‘Place’, in P. Cloke, P. Crang & M. Goodwin (eds), Introducing Human Geographies (249–61), (New York: Routledge).

Dionisio, M.R. & Macfarlane, A. (2021), ‘Tikanga rua: Bicultural spatial governance in Aotearoa New Zealand’, New Zealand Geographer, 77(2), 1–8: https://doi.org/10.1111/nzg.12303

Dombroski, K. (2018), ‘Thinking with, dissenting within: Care-full critique for more-than-human world’, Journal of Cultural Economy, 11(3).

Elkington, B., Smeaton, J., Ross, M., Mercier, O.R., Kiddle, R., Thomas, A. & Jackson, M. (2020), Imagining Decolonisation (Wellington: Bridget Williams Books).

Hendriks, C.M. (2009), ‘Deliberative governance in the context of power’, Policy and Society, 28(3), 173–84: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.08.004

Hutchison, A. (2014), ‘The Whanganui River as a legal person’, Alternative Law Journal, 39(3), 179–82: https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/1037969X1403900309

Jefferies, R. & Kennedy, N. (2009), Māori Outcome Evaluation: A kaupapa Māori outcomes and indicators framework and methodology, Planning Under Co-operative Mandates Māori Report 1 (Hamilton: University of Waikato & KCSM Solutions).

Jesus Dionisio, M.R., Macfarlane, A.H., Walker, D.P., Derby, M., Caldwell, R., Pani, J. & Waru, R. (2021), ‘Ngā mātāpono e rua: Stories of co-creation for bicultural spatial governance in Aotearoa New Zealand’, New Zealand Geographer, 77(2), 76–89: https://doi.org/10.1111/nzg.12299

Johnston, L. (2018), ‘Intersectional feminist and queer geographies: A view from “down-under”’, Gender, Place & Culture: A journal of feminist geography, 25(4), 554–64.

Jolly, D. & Thompson-Fawcett, M. (2021), ‘Enhancing Indigenous impact assessment: Lessons from Indigenous planning theory’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 87(106541), 1–9: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106541

Kawharu, M. (ed.) (2014), Maranga Mai! Te reo and marae in crisis? (Auckland: Auckland University Press).

Macfarlane, A. & Macfarlane, S. (2018), Toi Tū te Mātauranga: A national science challenge approach for culturally-responsive research (Christchurch: University of Canterbury).

Macfarlane, A.H. & Macfarlane, S. (2019), ‘Listen to culture: Māori scholars’ plea to researchers’, Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand: He Āpiti Supplement: Ngā Ahua o Te Ao Hurihuri – Rethinking Our Shared Futures, 49(sup1), 48–57.

Macfarlane, A., Macfarlane, S. & Gillon, G. (2015), ‘Sharing the food baskets of knowledge: Creating space for a blending of streams’, in A. Macfarlane, S. Macfarlane & M. Webber, Sociocultural Realities: Exploring new horizons (Christchurch: Canterbury University Press).

Matunga, H. (2013), ‘Theorizing indigenous planning’, in R. Walker & D. Natcher (eds), Reclaiming Indigenous Plannning (3–34), (Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press).

Ngaha, A. (2014), ‘Te reo Māori and Māori identity: What’s a maunga?’, in M. Kawharu (ed.), Maranga Mai! Te reo and marae in crisis? (70–94), (Auckland: Auckland University Press).

Olin, C.V., Berghan, J., Thompson-Fawcett, M., Ivory, V., Witten, K., Howden-Chapman, P., Duncan, S., Ka’ai, T., Yates, A., O’Sullivan, K.C., Keall, M., Ombler, J. & Hinckson, E. (2022), ‘Inclusive and collective urban home spaces: The future of housing in Aotearoa New Zealand’, Wellbeing, Space and Society, 3(100080), 1–9.

Olson, E. (2015),’ Geography and ethics I: Waiting and urgency’, Progress in Human Geography, 39(4), 517–26.

Robinson, K. (2014), ‘Motutī Road: At the end of the road, or just the beginning?’, in M. Kawharu (ed.), Maranga Mai! Te reo and marae in crisis? (96–101), (Auckland: Auckland University Press).

Ruru, J. & Kohu-Morris, J. (2020), ‘“Maranga Ake Ai”: The heroics of constitutionalising Te Tiriti O Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi in Aotearoa New Zealand’, Federal Law Review, 48(4), 556–69.

Sepie, A.J. (2018), ‘Tracing the motherline: Earth elders, decolonising worldview, and planetary futurity’ (PhD thesis, University of Canterbury).

Tapsell, P. (2014), ‘Tribal marae: Crisis? What crisis?’ in M. Kawharu (ed.), Maranga Mai! Te reo and marae in crisis? (34–63), (Auckland: Auckland University Press).

Walker, D.P., Ataria, J., Hughey, K.F.D., Park, P.T. & Katene, J.P. (2021), ‘Environmental and spatial planning with ngā Atua kaitiaki: A mātauranga Māori framework’, New Zealand Geographer, 77(2), 1–11.

Walker, R. (2016), ‘Reclaiming Māori education’, in J. Hutchings & J. Lee-Morgan (eds), Decolonisation in Aotearoa: Education, research and practice (19–38), (Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research).

White, I. (2020), ‘Rigour or rigour mortis? Planning, calculative rationality, and forces of stability and change’, Urban Studies, 57(14), 2885–900.

Yates, A. (2018), ‘Mauri-ora: Architecture, indigeneity and immanence ethics’, in A. Jasper (ed.), Architecture and Anthropology (New York: Routledge).

Yates, A. (2019), ‘Whanake mai te mauri ora: Think piece – an expanded wellbeing framework and urban science data tool for integrated wellbeing governance’: https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE50405109

Yates, A.M. (2021), ‘Transforming geographies: Performing Indigenous-Māori ontologies and ethics of more-than-human care in an era of ecological emergency’, New Zealand Geographer, 77(2), 101–13.