PROCEDIMIENTO ANALÍTICO PARA LA DETERMINACIÓN DE

on culturally-based monitoring for indigenous forests. A clear opportunity for contributing new knowledge existed for developing and applying culturally-based frameworks, tohu, methods and tools for assessing the health of indigenous forests from an Indigenous Māori perspective. A culturally-based Ketewhaihua monitoring toolkit has been successfully developed which has its foundation in a Māori cosmological framework but draws upon Western scientific traditions, in particular its methodology, to produce a unique tohu and data collection method.

Atua cosmological frameworks have been used in New Zealand, as an alternative to Western sustainability models, to help structure iwi management plans, cultural impact assessments and cultural health monitoring tools. Atua frameworks help to conceptualise a Māori worldview where all things, living and non-living, are connected through supernatural deities, heroic deeds and complex whakapapa interrelationships. The framework presented in this thesis is based around seven domain Atua, each responsible for an environmental domain, along with a network of related tribal Atua, or poutiriao, with more specific guardianship roles over species and phenomena. The methodology makes use of a set of 34 tohu each linked to a poutiriao and a relevant whakataukī. These and the Atua framework creates a link to the wisdom of the ancestors, helps generate discussion, is flexible, open to interpretation, and creates opportunities for different ways of learning and sharing

information amongst whānau and iwi. This is a novel approach in terms of the application of a contemporary Atua framework.

Typically in New Zealand mixed-methods approaches are utilised in the collection of data with both quantitative and qualitative data being collected in culturally based assessments (Harmsworth 2002a; Tipa & Teirney 2006b; Walker 2009; Harmsworth et al. 2011). Two unique aspects of this research involved the method in which data was collected. Firstly, the approach taken was ‘kōrero driven’, in that qualitative data took priority over the quantitative data. In all of the other

approaches uncovered, kaitiaki numerically rate the health of tohu first, then they follow this with a qualitative statement. These approaches run the risk of being ‘numbers driven’, in that the kaitiaki undertaking the assessment seek to justify the score that they have made and risk a loss of meaning. Secondly, brief poetic narratives such as whakatauākī and mōteatea were favoured as culturally

appropriate and efficient ways to record the kōrero and distil the essence of the health of each tohu. Both approaches are novel ways to collect data.

When quantitative data is collected in Aotearoa New Zealand using a CBM approach, typically a 1 to 5 Likert scale is utilised to rate the health of tohu. Occasionally a barometric type of scale such as -2 to +2 is utilised. Discussions around the cultural appropriateness of the different types of scale pertaining to CBM have not been found. It is assumed that most authors think there is no real difference between the different types of Likert scales. Through testing these two types in this research it was found that a -2 to +2 semantic differential scale was preferred by research team members both because such a barometer reflects the diminishing / enhancing aspects of mauri and wairua, and because they found it easier to visualise the centre of the scale. Occasional difficulties experienced by kaitiaki in rating the health of some tohu resulted in scores half way between two points. This suggests that a 7-point Likert (-3 to +3) would be a more appropriate metric.

The use of quantitative data in other CBM approaches has primarily been used for assessing the current health and, if repeat visits are undertaken, trends in the state of tohu over time. In this research the quantitative data were also used to assess the collective and individual understandings by kaitiaki, through triangulation with the qualitative data, of each tohu and how to rate their health. This is a novel use of quantitative data in CBM. In other research projects no investigations of

whether monitors have a similar or different understanding of tohu were revealed.

The Ketewhaihua is as much an ako learning tool as it is a monitoring tool. The research team did not set out to develop such a tool, however the Ketewhaihua was soon identified as performing a learning function. All members of the research team voiced and documented positive personal and collective learning experiences. Roles frequently interchanged with team members helping each other work to their strengths. They expressed surprise about how much mātauranga they held as a collective though as individuals they felt their levels were mediocre. The loss of Indigenous

knowledge is a phenomenon often commented upon, however it was found in this research that it is perhaps more accurately described as ‘fragmented’. All kaitiaki reported that their level of

mātauranga Māori increased over the research journey, as they rebuilt this fragmented knowledge. The tool facilitated the inter-generational transfer of mātauranga Māori and traditional narratives, kaitiaki citing the Atua framework, te reo Māori, whakapapa taxonomy, whakataukī, whakatau-a-ki, and the unique and holistic perspective mātauranga Māori has to offer biodiversity conservation and management.