Skip to main content

Working with mana whenua and rohe without hard boundaries

Why “boundaries” often fail in Māori contexts​

Many maps default to single, crisp boundary lines because that fits Western cadastral thinking. For mana whenua and rohe, that style can be misleading and sometimes harmful because:

  • interests can overlap
  • rights and responsibilities can be layered (kaitiakitanga, ahi kā, use, access, tuku, seasonal harvest)
  • shared harvest areas and travel routes are common
  • different purposes create different “map truths” (planning, governance, emergency response, research, education) When a map forces a single boundary, it can flatten relationships into an argument about lines.

What Te Puni Kōkiri and Te Kāhui Māngai maps are and are not​

On Te Kāhui Māngai, “areas of interest” and some rohe maps are presented for specific purposes and come with important limitations:

  • an area of interest map is used for Treaty settlement purposes, more than one group may have interests, and these maps are not a definitive statement of a group’s interests: https://www.tkm.govt.nz/disclaimer/
  • the “Find iwi by map” view is indicative only for navigating the website: https://www.tkm.govt.nz/map/
  • the “Iwi Areas of Interest” dataset is framed around administrative and negotiation contexts, which is a particular purpose, not a complete statement of rohe or mana whenua: https://hub.arcgis.com/maps/TPK::iwi-areas-of-interest-1/about If you use these datasets, label them clearly as “areas of interest (indicative)” and record the source and purpose in your metadata.

A better framing: represent relationships, not borders​

Useful alternatives to hard boundaries, depending on the kaupapa and audience:

1) Overlapping interest surfaces (not lines)​

Instead of one polygon per iwi, use overlapping surfaces that can stack:

  • semi-transparent polygons for different kinds of interest (kaitiakitanga, customary harvest, wāhi taonga, governance responsibilities)
  • hatched overlays to show “shared” zones
  • confidence bands (high, medium, low certainty) rather than a single edge This lets the map say “many interests exist here” without forcing hierarchy.

2) Catchments, coasts, and travel corridors as the organising unit​

For flooding, water quality, and taiao monitoring, catchments and coastal segments often match lived reality better than lines.

  • map catchment based responsibility and relationships
  • show corridors (rivers, ridgelines, ara tawhito, coastal routes) as the primary structure
  • treat rohe as context, not the main geometry

3) Place-based mapping: points, clusters, and stories​

Use place to place narratives instead of enclosing polygons:

  • key places (maunga, awa, roto, pā sites, marae) with carefully controlled attributes
  • cluster or grid summaries (hex bins) for sensitive themes
  • time sliders or story chapters to show seasonal use and historical change This supports kōrero tuku iho and reduces pressure to draw “the line”.

4) Networks and whakapapa of place​

For shared use areas, represent relationships as networks:

  • nodes: places, resources, communities, access points
  • edges: travel routes, seasonal movements, whakapapa links, customary pathways
  • weights: frequency, season, tikanga conditions, permissions This fits many real-world patterns and avoids boundary disputes.

Obfuscation techniques for sensitive layers​

If you meant “obfuscation” (often misspelled as “offuscation”), these are common GIS patterns to reduce risk while still being useful:

  • aggregation: summarise counts or categories to a grid (for example 1 km hex bins) rather than showing points
  • generalisation: publish broader polygons, buffers, or catchment-level summaries, not exact site footprints
  • geomasking (jitter): randomly offset points within a defined area, with rules that stop points crossing into the wrong catchment or coastline segment
  • k-anonymity style release: only publish a location if it represents at least k sites or households within an area
  • attribute suppression: keep geometry but remove fields that create identification risk
  • scale-dependent visibility: only show detail when zoomed out, with nothing visible when zoomed in
  • access control: keep the authoritative layer private, publish a reduced public version, and record who can access what Treat obfuscation as a safety tool, not as a substitute for consent and governance.

3D “place to place tours” instead of boundary lines​

3D scenes and tours work well when your story is about journeys, landmarks, and relationships:

  • build a 3D scene with terrain and imagery, then add labelled places and routes
  • use camera bookmarks to create a guided tour from place to place
  • attach audio or short text to each stop, focused on context not precise sensitive locations Good outputs include:
  • a guided coastal tour showing low-lying exposure and safe high-ground pathways
  • a river journey showing tributaries, confluences, and monitoring sites (with obfuscation)
  • a maunga to moana narrative without any “ownership polygon” Platforms that support this pattern include web scenes and story narratives such as ArcGIS StoryMaps, plus other 3D viewers.

How to write it up in your metadata and map legend​

Use wording that prevents misuse:

  • “Indicative area for [purpose], not a boundary”
  • “Overlapping interests exist, do not interpret as exclusive”
  • “Geometry is generalised or obfuscated for safety”
  • “Do not use for legal, cadastral, or definitive determinations”
  • “For engagement, confirm locally with the relevant iwi or hapū” Also record:
  • source dataset name and date accessed
  • purpose (Treaty settlement navigation, RMA kaitiakitanga context, emergency planning, education)
  • scale and accuracy limits
  • approvals and restrictions (who can share, where it can be published)

Useful reference pages and policy context​

Practical checks before you publish​

  • Does the legend avoid the word “boundary” unless it truly is one?
  • Have you shown overlaps rather than forcing exclusive polygons?
  • Is anything sensitive generalised, aggregated, or access controlled?
  • Does the page explain the dataset purpose (especially for Te Kāhui Māngai and areas of interest)?
  • Are you consistent: same terms in the map, the metadata, and the page text?
  • Have you included a “not definitive” statement wherever a polygon might be misread?