Māori persepectives about land use classification framework

[alpha-beta-soup]

My thoughts having read the "preliminary findings information synthesis" (LC4444) written by Nikki Harcourt, Susanna Finlay-Smits, Garth Harmsworth, Shuan Awatere, and Laise Harris

Recommendations and next steps:

1. Embedding key Māori principles and whakataukī (proverbs) as the foundatin for a land use classification framework will be key to making a system relevant and meaningful to Māori.
2. We identify a need to ensure flexibility for a land use classification framework to interact with Māori attribute layers that maintain data integirty and supports data soverignty protocols (see Te Mana Raraunga – Māori Data Sovereignty Network).
3. We recommend establishing an expert Māori advisory group to ensure that the land use classification framework like atua domains and whakataukī for example, is consistent with Māori priorities.
4. We consider that an expert advisory group would also be useful for identifying a broad representation of attributes suitable for Māori decision makers (hapū/iwi identify these for themselves).

---

1. The appendix lists several examples; I'm rather inspired by Kua raranga tahi tatou he whāriki, mātauranga mō āpōpō. (Together we weave the mat / In terms of mātauranga / For future generations.) The weaving analogy applied to land use classification brings to mind the reliance on multiple sources of input information and knowledge from very different people and organisations; creating a shared understanding of land use as spatial information, a mat or overlay for use in mapping, with an eye to what future generations will want to know about land.
2. There are big questions here, especially around data sovereignty, and I think one way to ensure we don't "paint ourselves into a corner" is that deciding on a "geographic unit" for a particular classification system should only be done with care. If we decide for instance, that the "geographic unit" for a particular classification system is a plot, or a parcel, that can predetermine the kinds of attributes that can be associated with it. For instance, a parcel boundary may bear no relationship to an historical mahinga kai, and this limitation to parcels may preclude this information from being recorded "downstream". Therefore the framework should have a general preference for classification of atomic geographic units, such as raster pixels or DGGS zones, rather than arbitrary vector geometries, even though they may correspond to visual, official, or legal boundaries. Such landscape features or legal entities can still be recorded as attributes, or left for end users to associate.
3. This is a decision and recommendation for MfE, but it does imply that these ideas (this repository) should be public and collaborative, and not owned by any one particular entity.
4. This implies that a multi-dimensional structure is an appropriate model for end-user-facing land use information. It should always be possible to "extend" (widen) a classification system with more properties/attributes, such that national information can be re-organised, re-presented, and corrected according to local priorities, to be owned by hapū and iwi without an expectation that this will be visible "upstream".

Corresponding actions:

• [x] Decide on an appropriate whakataukī for our land use classification framework, and possibly distinct ones for underlying classification systems.
• [x] Adjust framework principles to explicitly identify a preference for "atomic geographic units". Principle 2 is currently "Each classification is designed for an explicit spatiotemporal geographic unit." Suggest that this is extended to mention this preference (but not changing the idea that whatever it is, it is explicit not implicit.)
• [ ] Open up this repository. Do this openly, without hiding its history.
• [x] Allow for arbitrary "widening" of at least one of the classification systems, as in a multi-dimensional structure, to accomodate additional attributes that may be deemed suitable by Māori decision makers, at an end-user/private/iwi/hapū level.

[alpha-beta-soup]

re. 3, cf. https://github.com/manaakiwhenua/nzsluc/issues/17

[alpha-beta-soup]

re. 1, cf. https://github.com/manaakiwhenua/nzsluc/issues/16

[alpha-beta-soup]

re. 2, cf. https://github.com/manaakiwhenua/nzsluc/issues/18

[alpha-beta-soup]

re. 2, cf. https://github.com/manaakiwhenua/nzsluc/issues/22

[cavanaghj]

Having now read the report - probably the key thing that comes to mind is that is the specification and capture of the relevant attributes that is most critical, and that this in turn is linked to the spatiotemporal geogrpahic unit (prinicple 2) that is of relevance in a particular use context (and ultimately, critically where and how that information is sourced used etc... think there were some data sovereignty comments above) ,,, I think the spatiotemporal aspect is also important/significant in the context of tenure, and council zoning, infrastructure development - these factors can influence the activities that can take place on that land over time.

I don't entirely agree that current landuse classification systems are based on economic or production VALUES per se ..but it is more that classification along those lines gives insight into HOW the land is being USED/managed and provides some ability to 'constrain' what the range of those activities might be (and from that there can be varying levels of inference of impact/wider impact ... once again the devil is in the detail of the information that can be reasonably obtained at what scale to be used to inform any maps or other developed from a classification scheme ....

some thoughts anyway...