Skip to main content

Useful video: earthquake and earth science data for Māori GIS

· 5 min read
Duane Wilkins

The 2026 Ngā Poutama Matawhenua series includes a practical session on using earthquake and earth-science information in Māori GIS work: Te Mārama ki ngā Rū Whenua - Using Earthquake and Earth Science Data for Māori GIS & Mapping Kaupapa.

Watch the recording on YouTube

Hazard data is often presented as if the important thing is the finished technical layer. For Māori GIS the useful question is usually closer to home: what does this information mean for the people, whenua, marae, access routes, taonga and responsibilities connected to the kaupapa? A fault line or shaking model matters because of the relationships and decisions around it, not because the polygon itself is impressive.

Why it is useful​

Hazard information is often shown as a finished map, but the useful GIS work starts by understanding what the layer represents, when it was produced and what question it can answer. For iwi, hapū, marae and Māori land projects, earthquake and earth-science data can support marae and community resilience planning, understanding active faults, shaking and landslide context, identifying infrastructure and access vulnerabilities, combining hazard information with whenua, buildings and community assets, and preparing maps for emergency planning and recovery discussions.

A marae, however, is not simply another facility point on a resilience map. It may be a centre of whakapapa, whanaungatanga, manaakitanga and community response. An access road may be more than a transport line if it is the only practical route for whānau, kaumātua, supplies or emergency support. The GIS becomes more useful when the technical hazard layer is placed into that lived context.

Start with the places and relationships that matter​

A practical way to use hazard data is to begin with the places that matter to the kaupapa rather than beginning with every available hazard layer. Map the marae, whenua, access routes, water supply, gathering points, communications, key facilities and other locally important places that the people involved decide are relevant. Then add one hazard source at a time and ask what it changes about a decision.

This is where whanaungatanga and manaakitanga become practical rather than decorative concepts. Resilience planning is partly about how people will look after one another, who may need support, where people can gather and what connections need to remain functioning. GIS can help make those dependencies visible, but the map should be informed by the people who understand how the community actually works.

Useful sources to explore afterwards​

The session is a starting point. For current operational work, return to the source agencies and check the latest data rather than relying on screenshots from a webinar.

Useful starting points include:

These are scientific and government sources with particular purposes and methodologies. They can be highly authoritative for those purposes without becoming the only knowledge relevant to a place. Local observations, histories of previous events and community experience may help explain impacts and vulnerabilities that are not visible in a national layer.

Do not flatten different hazards together​

Do not merge hazard layers merely because they are spatial. Flood, tsunami, fault, landslide and shaking products are produced from different models, assumptions, dates and scales. Keep the source and limitations visible in the map or metadata.

The same applies to certainty. A hazard zone may describe a modelled probability or scenario rather than a prediction that a particular property will experience a particular outcome. Good mapping should help people understand uncertainty rather than turning model boundaries into false certainties.

Kaitiakitanga and continuity​

Earth-science data can also support kaitiakitanga where the kaupapa includes long-term care for whenua, waterways, coastal environments or places affected by natural processes. This does not mean translating kaitiakitanga into generic hazard management. It means recognising that planning decisions sit inside longer responsibilities to people and place, including what information needs to be retained for those who will make decisions after the current project team has gone.

A useful resilience GIS should therefore be maintainable, understandable and locally accessible. If the emergency map depends entirely on one external account or one specialist who is unavailable during an event, the technical system has become another vulnerability.

A practical principle​

Use the science carefully, keep its provenance and limitations visible, and combine it with the local context needed to turn a hazard layer into an actual decision. The objective is not to produce the most crowded risk map. It is to help iwi, hapū, marae and whānau understand what may affect them, what matters most and what practical choices can be made before an event occurs.

For more Ngā Poutama recordings and practical StoryMaps, see Ngā Poutama Matawhenua videos and StoryMaps.