Indigenous-led environmental research in Aotearoa New Zealand: beyond a transdisciplinary model for best practice,empowerment and action

Abstract

Complex multidimensional challenges have prompted a transformational shift towards holistic research integration with knowledge systems differing from conventional science. Embracing diverse ontological and epistemological approaches through new styles of collaboration, dialogue and practice enables durable solutions and desired outcomes. As societal and global issues become more urgent, complex and challenging, recognition of the intersection of the environment with economic, social, cultural and political dynamics means transdisciplinary approaches are advancing. Integrative, collaborative methodologies are central to indigenous-led research, providing insights for Western science. We describe characteristics of transdisciplinary research from the international literature and explore related kaupapa Māori (Māori theory and practice) approaches. Location-specific, indigenous-led environmental case studies from Aotearoa New Zealand show how they are transcendent of the transdisciplinary approaches they encompass. We demonstrate research beyond transdisciplinarity, modelling engagement, power sharing and collective action through integrative, collaborative endeavours across knowledge systems and praxis, stretching the development of transdisciplinary research everywhere.

Keywords

Aotearoa New Zealand environmental sustainability Indigenous research Indigenous theory kaitiakitanga kaupapa Māori transdisciplinarity

Introduction

Anthropogenic stressors including ecosystem destruction, species extinctions climate change, resource depletion and biodiversity loss have proliferated globally since the 1970s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018; International Energy Agency, 2020). Coupled with human population growth, increased consumption and escalating socio-economic inequalities, human and ecosystem sustainability face severe challenges (Nottage et al., 2010). These crises have precipitated an urgent need to find ways of working and operating that create solutions to an array of increasingly complex challenges and issues.

In response, increased interest in integrative interdisciplinary approaches seeks collaborations across various scales from local to global (Bernstein, 2015; Harrison et al., 2020; Popa et al., 2015). Momentum comes partly from the UN sustainable development goals, which make strong links between human well-being and ecosystem integrity. Integrative goals and aspirations are evident through movements such as Planetary Health (Whitmee et al., 2015), One Health (Harrison et al., 2020) and EcoHealth (Brown et al., 2005), which converge on similar framings of interdependence. From a review of literature, Min et al. (2013) outline critical requirements to enable more integrative research approaches in this field, stressing increased research funding, leadership, conceptual work, capability-building, participatory methods and evaluation of initiatives.

In this article, we use a case study approach to explore innovation and leadership from indigenous Māori of Aotearoa New Zealand in the broad domain of environmental integrity and sustainability. We highlight key features of Māori-led transdisciplinary research, attending to holistic, creative and location-specific dimensions, to formulate a framework to guide future studies.

Transdisciplinarity

The familiar concepts of multidisciplinarity—non-integrating engagement of two or more disciplines—and interdisciplinarity—research drawing on two or more disciplines with some unifying thinking—have advanced research on complex topics. However, a growing body of literature promotes the use of transdisciplinary approaches and research to address multifaceted complex issues that conventional science has difficulty addressing (Bammer, 2017; Harrison et al., 2020; Popa et al., 2015). Since the early 1980s, transdisciplinarity has been defined as working across knowledges (Nicolescu, 2008) evolving to break down disciplinary barriers to understand and merge diverse perspectives (Bernstein, 2015). This integration also helps to identify the role and influence of science in society, bringing it into context within epistemologies of philosophy, culture, mythology, religion, spirituality, creative arts and everyday life (Dieleman, 2015) of diverse social groups. A key concept within transdisciplinarity is multifaceted reality, a highly relational concept (Nicolescu, 2008) that encourages integrative approaches and the deconstruction of institutional, disciplinary, stakeholder and government knowledge silos (Min et al., 2013).

Bammer (2015) explored features of transdisciplinarity identifying key themes and producing a series of toolkits from reflection and learnings to date. This analysis highlights the need for change, collaboration, co-production of knowledge and policy development and methods for knowledge synthesis. It also advocates advances in research implementation, systems thinking, knowledge synthesis and integration methods. Transdisciplinary projects acknowledge interdependence of socio-ecological systems, restructuring disciplinary knowledge and the creation of new shared knowledge (Jakobsen et al., 2004). Researchers from different fields need to be enabled to work closely on common problems over extended periods, creating conceptual models that transcend discrete disciplinary interests (Harrison et al., 2020).

Theorising transdisciplinary concepts, approaches and providing good practice examples is essential to understand how transdisciplinarity works (Tötzer et al., 2011). However there are few practical examples to show how it works to deliver beyond notions of stakeholder engagement (Angelstam et al., 2013) and little coherence to the corpus of published work (Landstrom, 2017). There are gaps also about how transdisciplinarity may help repair epistemological divisions between indigenous and colonising populations—where a conventional Western science hegemony is entrenched and maintain a research focus on indigenous environmental justice (McGregor et al., 2020).

Transdisciplinarity and Indigenous research

Environmental research is one area where transdisciplinary practice examples are beginning to manifest out of theory. This may be because it is fundamentally intersectoral, often strongly place-based and necessarily collaborative among diverse knowledge sources and interests. Transdisciplinary research using conventional Western approaches are often insufficient to address complex environmental issues (Sydelko, 2018), and in such settings, local and indigenous knowledge is harder to marginalise or ignore. Good practice in the literature includes scientists and local residents working together (Landstrom, 2017), collaborations across professional cultural boundaries and engaging researchers within indigenous or community partnerships (Harrison et al., 2020; Henwood et al., 2019).

Indigenous epistemologies with a long history of systematic empirical observation and practice, reflect strong associations and inter-connections between the health of people, environmental integrity and community aspirations along with intergenerational engagement and self-determination (Moewaka Barnes & McCreanor, 2019; Reo et al., 2017). Such approaches, some of which originate in antiquity (Moewaka Barnes et al., 2017; Whyte, 2017; Wooltorton et al., 2015), have been damaged by colonisation, repression and marginalisation (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). Like conventional Western science, knowledge in indigenous systems of understanding is evolving and contextual, but highly adaptive in affording diverse cultures viable explanatory resources to enhance survival and thriving in dynamic environments.

The growing number of research projects that involve mutual relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous partners, signals a shift from harvesting cultural knowledge, to kaupapa Māori research where indigenous knowledge and perspectives are central to projects. Māori research is grounded in Aotearoa using kaupapa Māori approaches based on values and principles, where the main indigenous knowledge form is mātauranga (knowledge) Māori (Barlow, 1991; Mead, 2003; Waitangi Tribunal, 2011). This embraces all aspects of knowledge and philosophy including cosmology, philosophy, beliefs, language, science, technology, methods and practice. It is linked to local and community knowledge (Ulluwishewa et al., 2008) and is dynamic and constantly evolving (Harmsworth et al., 2002). As a process, strengthening mātauranga Māori is decolonising (Moewaka Barnes et al., 2009) and contributes to knowledge generation practices that are inherently transdisciplinary, crossing divides of researcher and researched, science and story, discipline and liberation. Rauika Māngai (2020), a recent guide to mātauranga in research, promotes a new approach to best practice for knowledge generation, encouraging acknowledgement of, investment in and alignment with Māori knowledge, people and resources on the basis of an engaged Treaty relationship throughout the science sector. Research built on these principles entails challenges around power dynamics, ontologies, expertise, purpose and impact of projects.

Māori have fought hard to produce flourishing, creative praxis that shares many qualities with transdisciplinarity, based on mātauranga Māori and kaupapa Māori, to holistically address many complex issues (Harmsworth et al., 2016; Harrison et al., 2020).

Insights into Māori notions of transdisciplinarity can be found in theories of knowledge and practice such as whakatauākī (proverbs) that highlight values:

Nā tōu rourou nā taku rourou ka ora ai te iwi (tribe)

With your basket of knowledge and my basket the people will thrive

and

Mā whero mā pango ka oti ai te mahi

With red and black the work will be complete

These two understandings promote the combining different sets of knowledge resources and cooperative work as producing benefits for the well-being of the people (Parker, 1966, p. 11).

Increasingly, developments support collaboration and shared knowledge between values-based local indigenous initiatives and academic-based research (Henwood et al., 2019; Sinner & Harmsworth, 2015). However, there may be wariness about such arrangements as they may serve colonial interests and fall short of Māori expectations. Emerging initiatives demonstrate ways of working where conventional approaches have failed to make headway (Harmsworth et al., 2016). Research projects grounded in Māori paradigms and Māori leadership, where others with skills and track records of working respectfully towards Māori aspirations are incorporated, are one avenue. Cram and Phillips (2012) describe seven community values that provide a basis for Māori and non-Māori transdisciplinary engagement in the creation of common space, that while time and resource intensive, can produce material solutions to complex problems.

Exemplars of Māori-led and driven transdisciplinary research highlight the generative qualities of such approaches to build from indigenous expertise. We have framed this article around three main questions, aimed at bringing together new insights:

How is holistic and creative research manifest in location-specific indigenous settings in Aotearoa New Zealand?

What are the key features of Māori-led transformative research in these settings?

Can we draw on these case studies to develop a framework to guide and expand transdisciplinary research and practice?

We argue that indigenous-led research in Aotearoa New Zealand is inherently transdisciplinary and present diverse case studies to demonstrate the characteristics and qualities of such work. However, we also suggest that such research goes beyond transdisciplinarity, through the expression of critical dimensions, including indigenous values, relationships, holistic thinking and co-production of knowledge that precede and reach across colonial systems.

Method: case studies

We focus on three geographically dispersed takiwā (region), Waikato (flowing water, the west coastal-central part of New Zealand’s North Island), Te Hiku o te Ika (the tail of the fish, the northernmost part of New Zealand’s North Island) and Waitaki (water of tears; the east coastal-central part of the South Island of Aotearoa New Zealand). Despite very different histories, each region has been hard-hit by breaches of Te Tirīti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi) and decade-long battles with the Crown for redress. Rights under Te Tirīti are codified in legislation (Ruru, 2012) and intimately tied to identity, spirituality, health and well-being of Māori communities (Harmsworth et al., 2016). In Te Tirīti settlements, the Crown acknowledges and partially compensates for extraordinary harms including warfare, invasions and confiscations, along with unfair land and resource alienations.

The case studies reported are analysed initially in terms of the themes outlined above.

Waikato takiwā

The Waikato catchment has become a priority because of high levels of modification from conversion of forest-cover to pasture, wetland drainage, development and population pressure, urbanisation, agricultural and industrial pollution of waterways. We discuss two strands of work carried out in the Waikato region since around 2014, all responding to issues of national, regional and local importance (Harmsworth et al., 2016; National Institute of Water and Atmosphere [NIWA], 2010; Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc., 2013; Williamson et al., 2016). The projects took te ao Māori (Māori world view) as a starting point, grounding them in the inseparability of domains such as the environmental, social, cultural, political and economic.

The first project, Te Reo o te Repo (the voice of the wetland), responded to extensive wetland destruction and loss of cultural values that has occurred over the past 150 years, leaving less than 10% of these ecosystems remaining in Aotearoa, most of them in very poor condition. Wetlands are a key source of well-being (Harmsworth, 2002; Taura, van Schravendijk-Goodman, & Clarkson, 2017) and contain taonga (valued) species, for significant practices including weaving, dyes, shelter, fishing and mahinga kai (food-gathering) areas.

The collaborative study with Waikato-Tainui (Māori tribal confederation of the Waikato region) commenced around 2015 as part of a large science-based wetlands programme, recording and collating mātauranga Māori, including ecological knowledge, from around the Waikato, to produce a Māori wetlands handbook (Taura, van Schravendijk-Goodman, & Clarkson, 2017). The work was led by Māori researchers, both academic and community-based, primarily using kaupapa Māori to describe Māori wetland interests and values, kupu (words) Māori, terms-classifications, definitions and wetlands uses. It also showcases key initiatives, projects and restoration efforts to rebuild the health of wetland ecosystems as a basis for well-being. The handbook draws on mātauranga and science in both method and findings, describing tools and best practice for restoration. The work also describes cultural indicators for monitoring drawing on previous studies (Harmsworth, 2002). This work demonstrated strong themes of kaupapa Māori, holism, systems thinking, collaborative work to inform planning and policy at local through to national level.

The second Māori community-based project was carried out in 2015–2018 within a larger project Ngā Tohu o te Taiao (environmental indicators) (Awatere et al., 2017; Hudson et al., 2016). This responded to the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (Ministry for the Environment, 2014), under the National Objectives Framework (Ratana et al., 2016) to provide uniform quality standards and guidelines for freshwater in New Zealand. Again, the catalyst was widespread water quality degradation and habitat loss that required inclusion of local Māori groups. Māori had continually raised concerns about impacts on cultural values, declining mahinga kai species and the need to understand loss of abundance, quality and potential contamination.

Ngā Tohu o te Taiao aimed to co-generate knowledge, tools and processes for setting freshwater limits and guidelines for customary resources and mahinga kai (Awatere et al., 2017; Hudson et al., 2016). Mahinga kai were identified as a significant Māori value within the National Objectives Framework (Ratana et al., 2016) and research focused on developing a set of key attributes or indicators within defined ranges. Two main groups participated in this work, for developing local Māori concepts and methods for assessment and reporting—researchers and community affiliated to the Waikato-Tainui College for Research and Development at Hopuhopu, Waikato (Awatere et al., 2017; Ratana et al., 2016), and the Ngāti Tahu-Ngāti Whaoa Rūnanga Trust (Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa Rūnanga Trust, 2013; Taura, Reihana, et al., 2017). Working in culturally significant localities (Awatere et al., 2017) produced the freshwater assessment tool known as Wai Ora Wai Māori (living water, fresh water). The assessment approach and tool were designed to be used by community members and build local Māori capacity. Work was overseen by a Waikato-Tainui technical advisory group—made up of community leaders and Māori research staff—based on earlier studies in the Auckland region (Awatere et al., 2015) and a summary review of mātauranga Māori concepts, frameworks and methods (Awatere & Harmsworth, 2014).

Waikato takiwā summary: These projects all demonstrate strong commonalities of community-based and academic-based collaborations, bottom up approaches—grounded in iwi-based (tribal), hapū-based (sub-tribal) and whanau-based (extended family) indigenous methodologies and methods, working across knowledge systems, valuing and supporting Māori community expertise and capacity, and actioning Te Tititi o Waitangi. Although locally and regionally based, they all contribute greatly to and inform national and regional policy. The projects all have a central focus of community capacity building, pragmatism, away from just academic or theoretical positioning. This regional example identified and satisfied agreed outcomes, locally, regionally and nationally, grounded in mātauranga Māori and kaupapa Māori methodology alongside contributions from conventional Western research approaches.

Te Hiku o te Ika takiwā

The second case study involves four projects within the Far North region Te Hiku o Te Ika. Te Hiku o te Ika Climate Change project was funded by Deep South National Science Challenge, responding to the lack of information about likely impacts of climate change on potable water in communities dependent on roof-and-tank supplies. The study arose within three Te Hiku o te Ika communities, Te Kao, Pawarenga and Motukaraka, involved key markers of iwi concern and worked with diverse data streams, using different methods (Henwood et al., 2019). It espoused continuous disclosure of findings, multiple information exchange pathways and community hui (gatherings).

The study called for transdisciplinary collaboration, bringing together three Te Hiku o te Ika communities, two iwi and their community researchers. It also engaged a non-indigenous climate scientist from NIWA with skills in scenario modelling, a non-indigenous microbiologist from the Environmental and Social Research Institute, specialised in pathogen contamination of drinking water and Māori social scientists. Te Hiku Iwi Development Trust as the contract holder grounded the work in the interests of the collective iwi of Te Hiku o te Ika.

Areas of expertise and accountabilities were negotiated throughout the study. Community researchers gathered daily rainfall and temperature data, carried out surveys of household water infrastructures and tested drinking water samples from dwellings in each community. The climate scientist combined community temperature and precipitation data with automated datasets for the climate change scenario modelling. The microbiologist analysed the community data on Escherichia coli contamination of drinking water. The social scientists analysed survey data, carried out interviews with kaumātua (elders of status), drew together findings across the team and led the dissemination efforts. The project produced location-specific climate predictions, developed drinking water futures and provided practical suggestions for mitigating negative impacts from the hotter, drier conditions predicted (Henwood et al., 2019).

The project Ko Tāngonge Te Wai (Tāngonge is the water) arose with the return of significant areas surrounding Tāngonge to the iwi of Te Rarawa and Ngāi Takoto in the 2015 Te Hiku Tiritī settlement. Much of this land near Kaitaia (the northernmost town in Aotearoa New Zealand) was taken by the Crown in the 1930s to settle Pakeha (non-Māori New Zealanders of primarily European descent) farmers. “Land development” involved draining 400 ha of the lake and wetlands for pasture, which created a long-standing grievance for mana whenua (people of that place). Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa (Council of Te Rarawa) supported a working group to create strategic direction for the enhancement of the area, beginning by prioritising research into cultural ecology and hydrology.

This 2-year, community-led and driven project funded by Te Wai Māori (n.d.) involved a collaboration with three iwi, Northland Regional Council, the Tāngonge Lake Trust and three local schools. The research team involved community-based researchers and leaders, Māori freshwater ecologists and social scientists, botanists, hydrologists and engineers. The study identified existing flora and fauna, gathered information from mana whenua, researched archives and complemented hydrology studies funded by the James Henare Research Centre (Henwood et al., 2016). Participating schools were encouraged and supported to include Tāngonge in curriculum activities, recognising its importance as a living laboratory learning resource. Findings have informed development of a 100-year vision to guide action plans (Henwood et al., 2016) and link into Te Rarawa Noho Taiao science education innovations for children in Te Hiku (Henwood et al., 2019; Moewaka Barnes et al., 2019).

The Utakura River and Lake Ōmāpere Project began with Te Rōpu Taiao o Utakura, a mana whenua charitable trust, with a kaupapa of restoring local freshwater environments and fisheries. The research was a response to the declining state of the local waterways, particularly the downstream effects of pollution from Lake Ōmāpere which is near Kaikohe and Okaihau, on the Utakura River and Hokianga Harbour.

Te Rōpu Taiao o Utakura worked with kaumātua Remana Henwood and Whariki (a Massey University Research Centre) researcher Wendy Henwood using funding from Te Wai Māori, to understand the catchment and its fisheries. Project hui and processes generated community collaborations to build local capabilities, ensuring mana whenua were driving the kaupapa. These efforts inspired a programme of riparian fencing and planting that helped end cyanobacterial blooms that had plagued the waterways every summer since the early 1990s.

A further project Working For The River Will Lift The Health Of The People was funded by the Health Research Council in 2010. It focused on water quality of the Utakura River and its tributaries, alongside assessing the connection between the health of the river and the health of the people.

This study included several collaborations among widely differing approaches, as NIWA freshwater quality specialists and Whariki social scientists worked directly with Te Rōpu Taiao o Utakura. This research produced three reports—Tuna Population Survey (Williams et al., 2009), Nutrient Budget for Lake Ōmāpere (Verburg et al., 2012) and Metals in Tuna from the Lake Ōmāpere catchment (Williams et al., 2012). The Northland Regional Council and NIWA provided access to existing water quality data.

Data about the roles and resources the river and lake provided for the community were drawn from qualitative interviews with kaumātua. A Māori demographer explored census and other databases to make links between historical and current issues affecting the Utakura population, showing community dynamics between 1874 and 2006. A Geographic Information Systems specialist contributed by mapping the project to provide visual representations of the work and the research group mentored community researchers to gather data. These diverse elements together produced a rich account of the ways in which the health of the waterways and mana whenua are intertwined.

In addition, a local film-maker worked alongside the project to capture progress and the story of the links between the waterways and whānau well-being, as well as local schools Horeke Primary and Northland College. International connections were important in promoting exchanges of ideas and experiences with other indigenous cultures including first nations Canadians via their National Collaborating Centres for Aboriginal Health and indigenous Australians through representatives from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The project achieved the desired outcomes in terms of water quality improvement, community capability-building and engagement (Te Ropu Taiao o Utakura, 2017). It has inspired further interventions for local environmental sustainability and has contributed to better relationships with Northland Regional Council and other institutions.

Summary: Te Hiku o te Ika projects detail ways in which transdisciplinary work is informing possibilities in relation to aspirations within the takiwā, contributing to recovery and maintenance of the health of environments and people. A holistic “four pou [posts]” framework (Te Hiku Development Trust, 2014) connecting cultural, environmental, social and economic factors underpins planning and projects.

Waitaki takiwā

The Waitaki River is of paramount importance to Ngāi Tahu (tribal group of much of the South Island of Aotearoa), who settled in the catchment over 900 years ago (Anderson, 1998). Historically, in excess of 170 nohoanga (dwelling places, encampments) identified in the catchment were used seasonally, as whānau travelled from permanent settlements on the coast to gather foods and other resources inland. More than 30 foods were gathered from the catchment, with tuna and weka being the most common (Taiaroa, 1880).

The catchment is significantly modified by hydroelectricity infrastructure, with four artificial lakes, eight power stations and 60 km of hydro canals and has been impacted by dairy intensification and increased water extraction, damaging water quality. The beauty of the landscape in the unmodified regions is undercut by development (Clarke, 2015), but the catchment remains central to Ngāi Tahu identity. Mātauranga Māori informs research, advocacy and action in the catchment, supporting the utilisation of whānau capacity and ensuring participation in agency-led programmes is beneficial to mana whenua actions.

Relationship management: For Ngāi Tahu, there is a need to manage the integration of the range of initiatives underway, their intended outcomes and the demands they make on Ngāi Tahu capacity. In 2017, the three kaitiaki Rūnanga jointly prepared a catchment-level Waitaki Iwi Management Plan, articulating a vision and policy framework entitled “Ki Uta Ki Tai” (from the mountains to the sea), to guide implementation (Aukaha Ltd, 2019). This integrative conceptualisation of a catchment confirms a mātauranga-based understanding that a catchment is constituted by soil, water, flora, fauna and relationships among them. Three key projects from a wide range of Ngāi Tahu initiatives underway across the Waitaki are presented as case studies.

Since 1990, three papatipu Rūnanga have maintained good working relationships with one of the electricity companies in the valley, Meridian Energy. The relationship has evolved and today is a group consisting of representatives of the Rūnanga supported by the main tribal organisation, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and Meridian staff. Ngāi Tahu has latterly developed relationships with other agencies, interest and community groups, and resource users including irrigators. Diverse relationships are needed if the breadth of outcomes sought by whānau is to be realised. However, these relationships represent another logistical challenge for whānau who need monitor who is representing them, in what forum, for what outcomes.

Catchment Modifications from 1930s: The immense value of the Waitaki Power Scheme and multiple large scale irrigation schemes to the nation presents challenges for Ngāi Tahu when advocating for improved environmental and cultural outcomes. Construction and operation of the schemes resulted in multiple adverse effects for Ngāi Tahu and whānau have been forced to adapt to living in a highly-modified catchment.

Limit setting processes have developed under national policies for freshwater management to efficiently allocate resources and meet societal expectations for water quantity, quality and ecosystem health. In partnership with Māori, it has become increasingly important to create mātauranga-based knowledge to inform and improve decision-making and collaborative management. Nutrient limits with similar provisions for measurement, monitoring and engagement, have been set for the Waitaki catchment.

Active engagement in catchment management is vital and has a particular focus within the limit setting around water extraction, constraints on fertiliser use and other forms of use that impact water quality and quantity. Collaborations with power companies, territorial authorities, farmers and other stakeholders on policies and practices, are essential mitigation strategies as Rūnanga work to preserve and advance cultural values and resources.

Since 2014, Environment Canterbury has been working with communities and Ngāi Tahu to develop a management regime for the Lower Waitaki, the reach of the river below Waitaki Dam, which seen by many as the remnant of the braided river. This includes an allocation of water to be made available for cultural purposes, plus a small amount set aside to augment and flush Wainono Lagoon, a significant mahinga kai to the north of the Waitaki.

Restoring mahinga kai: Mahinga kai restoration initiatives enable development of whānau capabilities and capacity critical to sustaining cultural vitality, practices and development within the takiwā. Through species restoration, planting, monitoring, cultural harvests and lived values, despite all the burdens, impediments and harms imposed by others, they embody and reproduce the sacred interdependence between healthy people and healthy environments.

The transfer of tuna upstream and downstream of the dams is a vital programme if the population of eels is to be restored. Mātauranga underpins this programme to identify both where migrant eels are to be caught and the habitats elvers are relocated to. More problematic for Ngāi Tahu is the reintroduction of weka, extinct in the catchment for decades but opposed by conservationists because of their feeding habits. The absence of this key species has negative cultural impacts, including loss of mātauranga associated with managing, gathering, processing and preparing it.

Monitoring and reporting the state of the catchment is vital enabling input to farm management plans and state of environment reports, and tracking implementation of initiatives. Local sub-tribal organisations, Te Rūnanga o Moeraki and later Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua were instrumental is the development of the Cultural Health Index (CHI). The CHI and other mātauranga-based tools developed from the late 1990s (Tipa & Teirney, 2003) were designed to enable assessment and reporting by local Māori. The CHI has been used at 50 sites in the Waitaki, some on multiple occasions. Other assessments grounded in mātauranga include a mahinga kai survey, rock art surveys and a wetland survey. In 2016, the assessments, along with biophysical data, informed the Cultural Health of the Waitaki Report Card (Tipa et al., 2016) which affords Māori the opportunity to assess progress towards their goals and objectives.

Summary: Relationship management with the sheer number of authorities, stakeholders and publics to be encompassed, informed and guided on the issues places extreme demands on Ngāi Tahu personnel. Māori researchers are leading innovative, integrative and cross-systems work in the Waitaki catchment, both on their own (Tipa & Teirney, 2003) and with other scientists (Opus International, 2007; Williams & Boubee, 2012). Multiple methods are used within the holistic, systems-focused Ki Uta Ki Tai framework, and research involving multiple knowledge systems and approaches is everyday practice in measuring, monitoring and discovery studies. The sheer scale and longevity of the challenges mean that keeping associations functional requires a collaborative, personal and stable commitment, so hands-on research has to be prioritised to survive and deliver.

Discussion

Kaupapa Māori case studies provide practical insights for guiding transdisciplinary research, highlighting a strong, located mātauranga and tikanga (correct procedures) base (Mead, 2003) reflecting mana whenua commitment to the physical, cultural and spiritual integrity of ancestral taiao (natural environment) and whenua (land). They instantiate holistic, nuanced understandings of the interdependence of ecosystems, landscapes, communities and environments with knowledgeable, engaged, sustainable indigenous populations. Projects worked across knowledge systems valuing Māori community expertise, acknowledging science as a community process where co-generated knowledge arose from respectful collaborations between academics and communities.

We began this article with some fundamental questions about transdisciplinary work in indigenous-led environmental research and we now revisit these briefly.

How is holistic and creative research manifest in location-specific indigenous case studies in Aotearoa New Zealand?

All the studies centre on Māori commitments to work collectively and collaboratively on solution-focused approaches to complex problems, covering diverse dimensions critical to change-oriented research, transformative policy and political dimensions. Whenua-damaging and mana (prestige)-diminishing actions were generated by colonisation, so Māori-led projects, grounded in tikanga and targeting redress and restoration, are inherently decolonising. Since decolonisation requires change for both indigenous and settler peoples, collaborations are desirable because they bring the knowledge systems together in a context where they can reciprocally influence each other. As kaupapa-driven initiatives, the projects drew on diverse knowledges, people and methods to contribute to objectives around environmental sustainability, cultural identity and social equity. This entails assembling transdisciplinary teams, willing to collaborate on cross-sectoral challenges, co-creating findings, perspectives, experience, skills and resources. Māori communities, whose knowledge and research praxis are undervalued, reach out with increasing confidence to partner with professional researchers, forming new networks of knowledge holders and generators for sustainable human and environmental futures.

More broadly academic and research initiatives such as Nga Pae o te Māramatanga (New Zealand’s Māori Center of Research Excellence) and other Centres of Research Excellence, along with some Māori Studies centres, are contributing composite transdisciplinary capabilities and capacity to the point where many studies are culturally self-sufficient. Already there are projects where the entire research approach and all the personnel and Māori, meaning that collaborations that are worked into them are by choice and are built from a tino rangatiratanga base.

What are the key features of Māori-led transformative research in these settings?

Within community-led, tikanga-based collaborations, kaupapa Māori research methodologies are holistic and provide vital characteristics and qualities that draw from multiple bodies of knowledge and perspectives. For Māori researchers are expected to cross non-Māori disciplinary boundaries where they are frequently asked to relinquish power and step outside their areas of comfort and expertise. Trusting tikanga is essential and knowing when to step forward or back are key skills. These dynamics are inherently decolonising in that they return growing levels of agency to Māori researchers and communities in the determination of what counts as knowledge on particular topics and specific settings. Critical approaches are central in these decolonising standpoints, as they involve system-level critiques and understandings of inter-connections and interdependencies of specific environments.

Most of the work is designed to restore balance, life and well-being to whole systems which overcomes fragmentation in implementing change. Holistic approaches inform planning and policy at multiple levels, enhance connection and well-being, and enact degrees of empowerment to address inequalities. Each project typically shows interactions with local environments where Māori knowledge and community leadership underpin decision-making, forming new styles of co-governance, co-planning and co-management. As with most Māori-led projects, we see engagement on Māori terms—the framing, the issues and methods—that challenges dominant perspectives, knowledges and aspirations of academia.

Can we draw on these case studies and features to develop a framework to guide and expand transdisciplinary research and practice?

A framework should include genuine collaboration, where indigenous and settler pluralism is ontological, epistemological and methodological in scope as well as accessible and understandable for all participants. Such arrangements should be underpinned by best practice principles of social justice and equity—as articulated in Te Tirīti o Waitangi and notions of indigenous environmental justice—which emphasise mutual respect of values, knowledges and collective aspirations. For research, policy and implementation within colonised settings and unequal power relationships, this entails a transformative approach, reflexivity about, and challenge to, the cultural bias and insensitivity that can proliferate and control such settings.

A framework beyond transdisciplinarity to transformation

A framework that distils elements emerging from this article is outlined below (Table 1), forming an organising lens for projects that strive for transdisciplinarity but also for strongly indigenising research. In such settings it may be useful to ask: How are these themes enacted, to what degree and how might our thinking, design and practice be challenged to move beyond transdisciplinarity?

Table 1.

He Tirohanga kotahitanga: a framework for transdisciplinary studies to guide the development of inclusivity.

Transdisciplinary approaches	Kaupapa Māori approaches	Transformational impacts
Working collaboratively Researcher-led relationships with counterparts from other disciplines and stakeholders or communities Working together on an agreed issue and shared outcomes; researcher-led	Working collectively Māori or community led; relationships developed with other knowledge holders Working together on agreed kaupapa with a commitment to tikanga and working in decolonising ways	Changes power dynamics, directions and shifts in who usually establishes and determines collaborations, values and practice
Holistic multi-level thinking Exploring interdependencies within whole systems using de-siloed design approaches	Holistic critical thinking Exploring interdependencies and interrelationships; consideration of culture, assumptions about what knowledge is valid Critical and challenging of dominant paradigms	Challenges ways of looking at the world, relationships and place of humans
Knowledge synthesis Bringing different knowledges and perspectives to bear on a common issue Working across disciplinary knowledge boundaries, co-producing knowledge	Dissolving barriers Breaking down multiple boundaries—knowledge systems, roles, expertise and hierarchies	Challenges participants to learn about themselves, their expertise, assumptions and role. Challenges who knowledge holders are and concepts of science and research; often requires stepping out of comfort zones
Integrative methods Methodologies oriented to collaborative, de-siloed approaches Creativity, co-design and dialogue used to create new integrative methods	Inclusive methods Research methods selected for their ability to ‘speak’ constructively to each other and to contribute to kaupapa Explicit valuing of diverse methods and decolonising methodologies	Participants are challenged to creatively consider purpose and process over hierarchy and familiarity of method
Change orientation Making change happen by engaging and influencing policy, planning and action Addressing power inequalities to improve decision-making Comprehensive understandings facilitate solutions to complex problems	Transformation Māori and community agency is enacted through research, implementation and action Addressing power and colonisation throughout—in relationships, concepts, roles, processes and in ideas of transformative change	Decolonising Māori-led approaches will challenge ideas of evidence, determine what change occurs where, and who benefits

Kaupapa Māori = Māori theory and practice.

Conclusion

Our long history of colonial oppression, constricted power, societal disparities environmental loss and harms mean that Māori have been forced to adapt to survive. Collaboration is seen as a means to correct power imbalances, integrate on Māori terms and expand our participation in decision-making.

Collaborative transdisciplinary research in Aotearoa New Zealand is strongly embedded in kaupapa Māori approaches, particularly in the context of understanding sustainable environmental integrity and its implications for human health and well-being. Case studies reflect Māori community knowledge and aspirations, providing tikanga to guide, design and build research and evaluation methods from outset to completion. We show that kaupapa Māori projects exceed established criteria for transdisciplinarity, extending to encompass a multi-level focus on Māori values that strengthens cultural identity, centres indigenous voices, builds capability and capacity. Such indigenous-led projects offer critical exemplars for transdisciplinary research and support indigenising research altogether.

Our case studies show how mātauranga can work constructively with quantitative disciplinary approaches, often founded on conventional Western science and economics. Indigenous knowledge and understanding is holistic and transdisciplinary, linking metaphysical, spiritual and physical worlds. It is inter-generational and dynamic in space and time, emphasising understanding interdependencies within whole systems and seek to find equilibrium within and across eco-environments. Actions often aim to achieve various sustainable states that meet aspirations such as restoring or maintaining the mauri of the system, stressing linkages between environmental health, justice and human well-being.

Despite the growing awareness of transdisciplinarity and the understanding that we need to implement these approaches, there are many challenges in working differently across perspectives, disciplines and knowledges. Established strategies, priorities and resourcing arguably continue to support colonial, reductionist, discipline-oriented work and specialism that counter integrative approaches. Needs include time and resources to build “integrative teams” and to develop collaborative environments based on trust and respect that focus on outcomes and acknowledge complexity.

The examples demonstrate the generation and co-creation of new knowledge across disciplines and teams while upholding the integrity, methods and practices of existing knowledge systems and perspectives. This approach exemplifies the development of culture-sensitive methods that enable engagement based on high levels of respect among diverse stakeholders. It facilitates interactions between Western science and mātauranga Māori, creating a co-learning environment which leads to improved understanding of other perspectives and knowledges. The work provides important pathways to understand and define transdisciplinarity from an indigenous Māori perspective, embracing diversity, building partnerships and transcending boundaries that value interdependencies. Māori communities bring knowledge systems together under tikanga and kawa, that guide how knowledge can be used and by whom. This provides essential tūāpapa for generating new knowledge and tools that can inform decision-making and achieve agreed or desired multi-level outcomes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This paper was written under the auspices of the project Te Aho Tapu with funding from Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga|New Zealand’s Māori Centre of Research Excellence.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tim McCreanor

Glossary

kaupapa Māori Māori theory and practice

ki uta ki tai from the mountains to the sea

ko Tāngonge Te Wai Tāngonge is the water

kupu Māori Māori words

mahinga kai food-gathering place

mana prestige, authority, power

mana whenua people with territorial rights to particular lands

mātauranga knowledge, wisdom, skill

Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga Māori Center of Research Excellence in Aotearoa New Zealand

Ngāi Tahu indigenous people of the South Island of Aotearoa New Zealand

Ngāi Takoto Māori iwi of Northland, Aotearoa New Zealand

Ngā Tohu o te Taiao environmental indicators; a national research project

nohoanga dwelling places, encampments

pou posts

taiao natural environment nohoanga

takiwā region

taonga treasure, valued things

a recovering ancient wetlands in Te Hiku o te Ika takiwā

te ao Māori Māori worldview

Te Hiku o te Ika the tail of the fish; the northernmost part of New Zealand’s North Island

Te Rarawa Māori iwi of Northland, Aotearoa New Zealand

Te Rarawa Noho Taiao annual programme of environmental science weekends for secondary students from Te Rarawa

Te Reo o te Repo the voice of the wetland; a collaborative research project with Waikato-Tainui conducted in the Waikato region

Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua tribal council of Arowhenua

Te Rūnanga o Moeraki tribal council of Moeraki

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu tribal council of Ngāi Tahu

Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa tribal council of Te Rarawa

Te Rōpu Taiao o Utakura a mana whenua charitable trust

Te Tirīti o Waitangi The Treaty of Waitangi

tikanga practice, protocol, custom

Waikato flowing water; central to West Coast part of New Zealand’s North Island

Waikato-Tainui Māori tribal confederation of the Waikato region

Waitaki water of tears; the east coast-central part of New Zealand’s South Island

Wai Ora Wai Māori living water, fresh water; name of a kaupapa Māori assessment tool

whakatauaki proverbs

whānau extended family

Whariki Whariki Research Centre|Massey University, Aotearoa New Zealand

whenua land

References

Anderson

(1998). The welcome of strangers. University of Otago Press.

Angelstam

Andersson

Annerstedt

Axelsson

Elbakidze

Garrido

. . .Stjernquist

(2013). Solving problems in social–ecological systems: Definition, practice and barriers of transdisciplinary research. AMBIO, 42(2), 254–265.

Aukaha Ltd. (2019). Waitaki Iwi management plan [An iwi resource management plan prepared with Te Rūnanga o Moeraki, Te Rūnanga o Waihao and Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua]. https://aukaha.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Waitaki-Iwi-Management-Plan-2019.pdf

Awatere

Harmsworth

(2014). Nga Aroturukitanga tika mo nga Kaitiaki: Summary review of mātauranga Māori frameworks, approaches, and culturally appropriate monitoring tools for management of mahinga kai. Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research.

Awatere

Robb

Harmsworth

(2015). Proposed Mana Whenua values, attributes and measures for Auckland Council’s Wai Ora Wai Māori programme (Landcare Research Contract Report LC2319). Auckland Council.

Awatere

Robb

Taura

Reihana

Harmsworth

Te Maru

Watene-Rawiri

(2017). Wai Ora Wai Māori—A kaupapa Māori assessment tool (Policy Brief No. 19). Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research. Wai Ora Wai Māori – a kaupapa Māori assessment tool (landcareresearch.co.nz).

Bammer

(2015). Improving research impact by better understanding change: A case study of multidisciplinary synthesis. In Bammer

(Ed.), Change! Combining analytic approaches with street wisdom (pp. 289–323). ANU Press.

Bammer

(2017). Tools for transdisciplinary research. In Fam

Palmer

Riedy

Mitchell

(Eds.), Transdisciplinary research and practice for sustainability outcomes (pp. 39–54). Routledge.

Barlow

(1991). Tikanga Whakaaro: Key concepts in Māori culture. Oxford University Press.

10.

Bernstein

(2015). Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11(1), Article R1. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/510/412

11.

Brown

Grootjans

Ritchie

Townsend

Verrinder

(Eds.). (2005). Sustainability and health: Supporting global ecological integrity in public health. Allen & Unwin.

12.

Clarke

(2015). The current water quality state of lakes in the Waitaki catchment (Report No. R15/157). Environment Canterbury Regional Council. https://api.ecan.govt.nz/TrimPublicAPI/documents/download/2458086

13.

Cram

Phillips

(2012). Claiming interstitial space for multicultural, transdisciplinary research through community-up values. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 5(2), 36–49.

14.

Dieleman

(2015). Transdisciplinarity hermeneutics: Working from the inner self, creating ecologies of knowing. Transdisciplinarity Journal of Engineering and Science, 6, 72–85.

15.

Harmsworth

(2002). Coordinated monitoring of New Zealand wetlands, phase 2, goal 2: Māori environmental performance indicators for wetland conditions and trends (SMF Project No. 5105). Ministry for the Environment.

16.

Harmsworth

Awatere

Robb

(2016). Indigenous Māori values and perspectives to inform freshwater management in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Ecology and Society, 21(4), 9.

17.

Harmsworth

Barclay Kerr

Reedy

(2002). Māori sustainable development in the 21st century: The importance of Māori values, strategic planning, and information systems. He Puna Korero: Journal of Māori and Pacific Development, 3(2), 40–69.

18.

Harrison

Baker

M. G.

Benschop

Death

R. G.

French

N. P.

Harmsworth

. . .Murdoch

D. R.

(2020). One health Aotearoa: A transdisciplinary initiative to improve human, animal and environmental health in New Zealand. One Health Outlook, 2(1), 4.

19.

Henwood

Brockbank

Moewaka Barnes

Moriarty

Zammit

McCreanor

(2019). Enhancing drinking water quality in remote Māori communities. MAI Journal, 8(2), 97–109.

20.

Henwood

Moewaka Barnes

Brockbank

Gregory

Hooper

McCreanor

(2016). Ko Tāngonge Te Wai: Indigenous and technical data come together in restoration efforts. EcoHealth, 13, 623–632.

21.

Hudson

Collier

Awatere

Harmsworth

Henry

Quinn

Robb

(2016). Integrating indigenous knowledge into freshwater management. International Journal of Science in Society, 8(1), 1–14.

22.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018, October 8). Global warming of 1.5°C. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

23.

International Energy Agency. (2020, June 11). The impact of the Covid-19 crisis on clean energy progress. https://www.iea.org/articles/the-impact-of-the-covid-19-crisis-on-clean-energy-progress

24.

Jakobsen

Hels

McLaughlin

(2004). Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analyses: A cross-country comparison. Forest Policy and Economics, 6(1), 15–31.

25.

Landstrom

(2017). Transdisciplinary environmental research: A practical approach. Palgrave.

26.

McGregor

Whitaker

Sritharan

(2020). Indigenous environmental justice and sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43, 35–40.

27.

Mead

H. M.

(2003). Tikanga Māori: Living by Māori values. Huia Publishing.

28.

Min

Allen-Scott

Buntain

(2013). Transdisciplinary research for complex one health issues: A scoping review of key concepts. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 112(3), 222–229.

29.

Ministry for the Environment. (2014). National policy statement for freshwater management (NPS-FM and NOF 2014).

30.

Moewaka Barnes

Gunn

Moewaka Barnes

McPhee

Wetherell

McCreanor

(2017). Feeling and spirit: Developing an indigenous wairua approach to research. Qualitative Research, 17(3), 313–325.

31.

Moewaka Barnes

Henwood

Kerr

McManus

McCreanor

(2009). Knowledge transfer and indigenous research. In Banister

Leadbeater

Marshall

(Eds.), Knowledge transfer strategies in community-based research. University of Toronto Press.

32.

Moewaka Barnes

Henwood

Murray

Waiti

Pomare-Peita

Bercic

. . . McCreanor

(2019). Noho Taiao: Reclaiming Māori science with young people. Global Health Promotion, 26(Suppl. 3), 35–43.

33.

Moewaka Barnes

McCreanor

(2019). Colonisation, hauora and whenua in Aotearoa. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 49(Suppl. 1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.03032019.01668439

34.

National Institute of Water and Atmosphere. (2010). Waikato river independent scoping study (NIWA Client Report: HAM2010-032).

35.

Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa Rūnanga Trust. (2013). Rising above the mist—Te aranga ake i te taimahatanga. Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa Iwi Environmental Management Plan.

36.

Nicolescu

(Ed.). (2008). Transdisciplinarity: Theory and practice. Hampton Press.

37.

Nottage

Wratt

Bornman

Jones

(2010). Climate change adaptation in New Zealand: Future scenarios and some sectoral perspectives. New Zealand Climate Change Centre. http://www.climatecloud.co.nz/CloudLibrary/Climate%20change%20adaptation%20in%20New%20Zealand%20(NZCCC)%20(A4%20low).pdf

38.

Opus International. (2007). Desktop archaeological review—Waitaki River Catchment.

39.

Parker

(1966, March). Nga Whakatauki Māori proverbs and sayings. Te Ao Hou, 54. http://www.teaohou.natlib.govt.nz/journals/teaohou/issue/Mao54TeA/c54.html

40.

Popa

Guillermin

Dedeurwaerdere

(2015). A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures, 65, 45–56.

41.

Ratana

Clearwater

Forrest

Davies

Te Maru

(2016). Exploring processes, tools and frameworks that support mahinga kai values within a national objectives framework context (NIWA Client Report: 2016106HN). National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.

42.

Rauika Māngai. (2020). A guide to Vision Mātauranga: Lessons from Māori voices in the New Zealand Science Sector. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise.

43.

Reo

N. J.

Whyte

K. P.

McGregor

Smith

Jenkins

J. F.

(2017). Factors that support Indigenous involvement in multi-actor environmental stewardship. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 13(2), 58–68.

44.

Ruru

(2012). The right to water as the right to identity: Legal struggles of indigenous peoples of Aotearoa. In Sultana

Loftus

(Eds.), The right to water: Politics, governance and social struggles (pp. 110–122). Earthscan.

45.

Sinner

Harmsworth

(2015). Māori involvement in collaborative freshwater planning—Insights from Hawkes Bay (Policy brief. Freshwater Values, Monitoring and Outcomes [VMO] programme [MBIE contract: C09X1003]). Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research.

46.

Sydelko

(2018, January). A systematic integration approach to designing interagency responses to wicked problems [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2017, Vienna, Austria.

47.

Taiaroa . (1880). Map and manuscript [Map and manuscript managed as a silent file].

48.

Taura

Reihana

Awatere

Harmsworth

Forrest

(2017). Wai Ora Wai Māori—A kaupapa Māori assessment tool for Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa. Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research.

49.

Taura

van Schravendijk-Goodman

Clarkson

(Eds). (2017). Te reo o te repo, the voice of the wetland: Connections, understandings and learnings for the restoration of our wetlands. Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research and Waikato Raupatu River Trust. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/books/te-reo-o-te-repo

50.

Te Hiku Development Trust. (2014). Te Hiku well being report—Te Oranga o Te Hiku. http://www.tehiku.iwi.nz/uploads/7/4/6/3/7463762/e-copy_-_te_hiku_wellbeing_report.pdf

51.

Te Ropu Taiao o Utakura. (2017). Working for the river will lift the health of the people. SHORE & Whariki Research Centre.

52.

Te Wai Māori. (n.d.). Welcome to Te Wai Māori—The Māori Freshwater Fisheries Trust. https://waimaori.maori.nz/

53.

Tipa

Teirney

(2003). A Cultural Health Index for streams and waterways: Indicators for recognising and expressing cultural values (Technical Paper 75, ME Number 475). Ministry for the Environment.

54.

Tipa

Williams

Van Schravendijk-Goodman

Nelson

Dalton

Home

. . .Quinn

(2016). Using environmental report cards to monitor implementation of iwi plans and strategies, including restoration plans. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 51(1), 21–43.

55.

Tötzer

Sedlacek

Knoflacher

(2011). Designing the future—A reflection of a transdisciplinary case study in Austria. Futures, 43(8), 840–852.

56.

Tuhiwai Smith

(1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books.

57.

Ulluwishewa

Roskruge

Harmsworth

Antaran

(2008). Indigenous knowledge for natural resource management: A comparative study of Māori in New Zealand and Dusun in Brunei Darussalum. International Journal of Geography: GeoJournal, 73(4), 271–284.

58.

Verburg

Parshotam

Palliser

(2012). Nutrient budget for Lake Ōmāpere (NIWA Client Report: HAM2012-030). Te Roopū Taiao o Utakura.

59.

Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc. (2013). Waikato-Tainui environmental plan: Our Plan, our environment, our future—Tai Tumu, Tai Pari, Tai Ao.

60.

Waitangi Tribunal. (2011). Ko Aotearoa Tenei report (WT 262).

61.

Whitmee

Haines

Beyrer

Boltz

Capon

A. G.

de Souza Dias

B. F.

. . .Yach

(2015). Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. The Lancet, 386(10007), 1973–2028.

62.

Whyte

(2017). Indigenous climate change studies: Indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Language Notes, 55, 153–162.

63.

Williams

Boubee

(2012). Freshwater fish in the Waitaki catchment [A report prepared for a training workshop at Te Rūnanga o Moeraki]. National Institute of Water and Atmosphere.

64.

Williams

Boubee

Dalton

Henwood

Morgan

Smith

Davison

(2009). Tuna population survey of Lake Omapere and the Utakura river (NIWA Client Report: WLG2009-39). National Institute of Water and Atmosphere.

65.

Williams

Stewart

Boubee

Dalton

(2012). Metals in tuna from the Lake Ōmāpere catchment. A preliminary assessment (NIWA Client Report HAM2012-011 prepared for Te Roopū Taiao o Utakura). National Institute of Water and Atmosphere.

66.

Williamson

Quinn

Williams

Van Schravendijk-Goodman

(2016, March). 2016 Pilot Waikato river report card: Methods and technical summary [Report]. Waikato River Authority.

67.

Wooltorton

Collard

Horwitz

(2015). Stories want to be told: Elaap Karlaboodjar. Philosophy Activism Nature, 11, 3–18.