3 Study Design
This section of the report describes the:
- choice of rivers included in the study
- selection of sites on those rivers
- identification of appropriate cultural indicators of stream health
- development of the recording form used by the runanga assessment teams
- data collection.
3.1 River selection
Two river catchments were included in the study to determine whether the methods and tools resulting from the project are valid for different catchments. The Taieri and Kakaunui catchments were selected because:
- the two catchments are of significance to Ngai Tahu, as recognised by the Crown in the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 (schedules 70 and 23 contain the statutory acknowledgements of Lakes Waipori / Waihola in the Taieri catchment and the Kakaunui River, respectively)
- the rivers are of significance to Otakou and Moeraki runanga, respectively
- a significant amount of written traditional information and knowledge is held within the runanga and could be accessed
- they are both hill country rain-fed rivers with a variety of land uses in their catchments
- extensive research has been conducted into stream health in the Taieri River
- the Otago Regional Council has assigned priority to investigating and reviewing management of both catchments.
3.1.1 The Taieri catchment
The Taieri catchment is the second largest in Otago, covering an area of 5650 km2. The river rises in the uplands of Central Otago and meanders through the block mountains of the upper Taieri catchment, before passing through an incised gorge and crossing the Taieri Plains, in what is commonly referred to as the Lower Taieri. The Taieri joins the Waipori River before it passes through another gorge to meet the sea at Taieri Mouth.
3.1.2 The Kakaunui catchment
The Kakaunui is one of a number of significant rivers that drain the coastal hills of Otago. It rises in high country and passes predominantly through dry lowlands. The catchment is subject to low flows, particularly during November and April.
Schedule 1D of the Proposed Regional Water Plan for the Otago Region confirms the significance of both the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers to Ngai Tahu. It identifies the following cultural values for both:
- kaitiakitanga
- mauri
- wahi tapu and/or waiwhakaheke
- wahi taonga
- mahinga kai
- kohanga
- trails
- cultural materials.
3.2 Site selection
The study was designed to ensure that data for each of the indicators of stream health and mahinga kai collected at sites in the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers could be subjected to statistically rigorous analysis during the development of the CHI. The study design also provided for the application of Western scientific stream health assessment methods at all sites so that comparisons could be made between cultural and scientific measures, providing a broader perspective within which to view the CHI.
Sites were selected according to the following criteria:
- stream size
- sites of traditional significance
- catchment land use.
3.2.1 Stream size
A credible stream health measure should give reliable results across all stream sizes, from headwater streams to the lower reaches of the mainstem. In cultural terms, site selection that includes all parts of the catchment is consistent with the ki uta ki tai (mountains to the sea) philosophy.
Three orders of stream size were selected as the most appropriate measure. The categories adopted were:
- first- and second-order streams - the smallest or headwater streams
- third- and fourth-order streams - medium-sized streams that may be tributaries or the mainstem in the middle reaches
- fifth-order and above streams - larger streams that may be major tributaries, or the mainstem in the lower reaches.
Within each of these stream-order categories we sought 8 to 10 sites, because this level of replication allows meaningful results to be separated out from natural variability within the data. In the larger Taieri catchment this translated to 30 sites: 10 in each of the three stream-order categories.
In the smaller Kakaunui catchment we anticipated including sites within all three categories, but none of the first- and second-order streams were flowing during our site visits. As a result, our database was restricted to 16 sites: eight in the third- and fourth-order categories and eight in the fifth-order-plus category.
3.2.2 Sites of traditional significance
Members of Te Runanga Otakou and Te Runanga o Moeraki were interviewed about the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers, respectively, and their catchments. Members were asked, in an interactive 'conversation-style' interview, the following questions:
- If you drove up beside a beautiful healthy stream, what would it look like?
- How do you assess a site and decide whether to fish there or not?
- What has impacted on the health of streams and rivers?
- What has impacted on your mahinga kai?
- What traditional monitoring techniques have you heard of - specific to rivers?
- What are some of the sites that you use or used in the past in the Taieri / Kakaunui catchments? What was harvested from these areas?
- What could iwi add to the management process?
- What are the barriers that stop us participating now?
As can be seen from this list, interviews started with general questions about river health, moved on to questions about mahinga kai, and then, with the use of maps, associations with specific sites were identified and sites of traditional significance recorded. The recommended list of sites was agreed with representatives from each of the runanga.
3.2.3 Catchment land use
Land use within the Taieri catchment is documented on the University of Otago Stream Team's Geographic Information System (GIS). Categories include tussock, intensively grazed pasture, deer farming, pine plantation, and native bush. For the optimum study design, our aim was for sites to be replicated in each stream-order and land-use category. This was possible for first- and second-order streams, and two sites were selected in each of the five land-use categories. Further downstream there is greater heterogeneity in catchment land use, so strict selection according to land use was more difficult.
For the Kakaunui catchment, land use was assessed from aerial photographs held by the Otago Regional Council and entered into the GIS. Fewer land-use categories were evident, with intensively grazed pasture and tussock predominating. A field visit was required to validate the data before site selection could be finalised.
3.2.4 Finalising site selection
In the site-selection process, sites of traditional significance were first assigned within each of the stream-order categories. Remaining sites were selected to optimise variety and replication of land use. Figures 1 and 2 show the location of sites selected in each catchment, together with details of stream size and traditional association.
See figure 1 at its full size (including text description)
See figure 2 at its full size (including text description)
3.3 Selection of indicators of cultural stream health
3.3.1 Potential indicators from the 1998 case study
The starting point for this study was the report from the 1998 Taieri River Case Study (known as Stage 1; see Tipa, 1999), which concluded with a list of 30 indicators for assessing stream health. Stage 2 of the project sought to operationalise the indicators that had been identified by kaumatua, and develop a tool for use by Māori to assess stream health from a cultural perspective.
3.3.2 Further interviews to determine indicators
Some of the indicators identified during Stage 1 represent positive statements that describe a healthy waterway, while others are negative and describe features or activities that adversely impact on a waterway. [This mix of positive and negative indicators was raised as a concern by Nigel Jollands (former Ministry for the Environment) when he commented on the first Taieri Report, prepared in 1998.] We therefore carried out further interviews with members of Ngai Tahu whanui, asking them to describe the characteristics of a healthy waterway. Because the questions about the health of a waterway are generic, we interviewed Ngai Tahu from throughout the rohe. Twelve further interviews were completed: two from Otakou, four from Moeraki and six from throughout the rest of the rohe. From interview transcripts we derived the following indicators that are important in determining whether a river is healthy:
- shape of the river
- sediment in the water
- riverbank condition
- flow characteristics
- flow variations
- flood flows
- sound of flow
- movement of water
- river mouth
- natural river mouth environ
- water quality
- water quality throughout the catchment
- riparian vegetation
- use of the river margin
- temperature
- catchment land use
- freshwater smell
- sediment on the riverbed stones and gravels
- abundant and diverse range of mahinga kai species
- fish are safe to eat
- water is safe to drink
- uses of the river.
These indicators are very similar to - and further validate - the indicators that were included in the 1998 report. In the paragraphs below we provide quotes from those interviewed that we believe validate the inclusion of each indicator.
Shape of the river
The shape of the river has to be natural. Those interviewed explained that a healthy river is characterised by pools, riffles and runs with a natural pattern of bends and curves. More specifically they believed it was important that:
There have been no alterations to the course of the stream... The river flows and there are a series of pools, riffles and runs (Broad).
It would have curves and bends, twists and turns ... It would have ebbs and flows, deeps and shallows (Cook).
The river environ is balanced. The river fits the landscape; river, river margin, and land are all connected. Nothing is at risk. The river is healthy from the source in the headwaters to the sea. The river is balanced. Stream change is natural - floods and droughts are natural (G. Thomas).
Sediment in the water
Water free from discoloration is seen as important, as evidenced by the statement from Williams that "the water is good quality cos the only discolouration is when the river is in flood".
Riverbank condition
A number of interviewees started by describing the riverbanks. Many linked riverbanks and riparian margins, but Broad specifically saw the importance of "the banks are non-eroding (this means there is no cattle on the banks)".
Flow characteristics / flow variations
All interviewees commented on the flow of water. The comments by Davis and O'Connell, in particular, confirm that water quantity is an issue. However, it is not possible to fully assess quantity issues with one visit to a site. We therefore sought to identify a number of indicators that collectively might help us to assess flow and quantity issues.
To me a healthy river is a river that has first and foremost a full complement of water. It has a quantity of water that retains a high fishery resource in terms of a number of varieties of fish can live in it. A river that has the quantity that will maintain quality of water (Davis).
We take too much out and don't consider what the river actually needs (O'Connell).
Flood flows
The following statements confirm the importance of flood flows. However, given the approach of using a single site visit, this indicator could not be further involved in developing the cultural stream health index.
A healthy river for me is one that has maintained waterflow - that actually does all the maintenance or flood maintenance or whatever is required in the river to keep the channel open, so that it allows migration inland and downstream, for whatever, it may be an animal, it maybe a fish for that to happen (Davis).
Sound of flow
Couch believed that assessing the river means that "you consider the sound, clarity, look and taste of it".
Movement of water (is visible)
A number of interviewees believed that the visible movement of water was an important characteristic of a healthy river.
The river flows (O'Connell).
It looks like it has life - if it is stagnant or there is no flow it is unlikely to support life (Couch).
River mouth
Interviewees noted that activities upstream have the potential to impact on sites downstream. Reihana advised that we should "check the river mouth, the condition, and the clarity there". Our approach to assessing multiple sites in the catchment precludes specific assessment of the river mouth, and this indicator is not considered further.
Water quality throughout the catchment
As noted earlier, Williams summarised the importance of water-quality considerations when she explained that in a healthy river, "the water is good quality cos the only discolouration is when the river is in flood".
Riparian vegetation
The following comments confirm that interviewees clearly believe that the health of the river and the species to be sourced from that river are linked to the condition of the riparian margins.
The other thing about healthy rivers, they need to be rivers that have the vegetation that is appropriate for the shelter and the habitat for those animals that live and I'm not just talking about fish, I'm talking about the micro-organisms and the insects ... and even those animals that frequent it for whatever reason they want to be there (Davis).
There is overhang - vegetation (ferns or tussocks) overhang the bank and into the water. This provides food and clears the sediment away (Broad).
Vegetation on the river margin provides shelter and food for what is in the river. The river supports a range of species. Fish in the water, trees and vegetation growing beside the water, birds on the water and in the trees. A full range of life is supported - linked by water (D.Tipa).
Use of the river margin
Activities on the river margin were noted as a concern. Broad referred specifically to the presence of stock, explaining that for a healthy river "the banks are non-eroding (this means there is no cattle on the banks)". Davis noted the presence of tracks and vehicle access along the riparian margin as a concern.
Temperature
One interviewee (Reihana) stated that he would use temperature as an indicator if he was responsible for monitoring the health of a waterway. Once again, the approach of using a single site visit precludes meaningful analysis of temperature and this indicator is not considered further.
Catchment land use and river 'balance'
Interviewees believed that there is a link between land use and river condition, as evidenced by the following comments.
The source of the mauri is the headwaters. These mountainous ranges are the home of the atua. Physical markers would be placed throughout the catchment. Ceremonies would take place at these markers. The physical mauri together with the appropriate ritual ensures plentiful harvest. Management is underpinned by ritual and respect. Māori knew the mainstem Kakaunui could be followed and that it would branch into a number of small tributaries. The source, which should be protected, was the homes of the atua - the Kakaunui Hills (Higgins).
This statement was supported by that of Reihana who explained that:
The mauri is sourced from the headwaters. They should be intact, unmodified, and protected. There are different parts to a catchment as there are parts to any living entity - damaging one part impacts on the whole.
Furthermore, it is important that:
The river environ is balanced. The river fits the landscape; river, river margin, and land are all connected. Nothing is at risk ... There is stability in the surrounding land (G. Thomas).
Freshwater smell
Although the 1999 report concluded that the freshwater smell should not be used as an indicator, it has been included here because several interviewees referred to smell as an indicator.
A healthy river is a sense, a feeling, a sense, when you get to a river, lake or stream, you feel, that this is in good shape. You can smell a healthy river (Couch).
It would have all those, have those lovely smells (Cook).
Sediment on the riverbed stones and gravels
Broad explained that a healthy river would be characterised by "clear gravel on the river bottom, free of sediment".
Abundant and diverse range of indigenous species
Interviewees believe that a healthy waterway would support life, in particular abundant indigenous populations. They specifically mentioned birds, fish, insects, and plants.
A healthy river supports life. There is lots of activity - fish, plants, birds (D. Thomas).
Identify what lives in the catchment. Check it all out, birds, fish, all life (Reihana).
I'd be looking at what is actually in the water - the species. ... We consider what we get from it - what mahinga kai. What is in the stream and what is in the ecosystem surrounding it? (O'Connell).
Fish are safe to eat
Interviewees specifically referred to the condition of mahinga kai, pointing out that mahinga kai from a healthy waterway would be fit for human consumption. O'Connell summed this up when he explained:
... the mahinga kai would be safe to eat. We consider the health of mahinga kai. If it supports life, is that life in a healthy state? If a tuna has abscesses on it, we won't take it home for the pot.
A concern was that you did not always know the condition of the fish. Reihana believed fish may "not be safe to eat - with contamination - you don't always know".
Water is safe to drink
Couch believed that a healthy river is safe to taste.
Uses of the river
Interviewees also identified what they believe was the cause of deterioration in the health of a river. As a result, indicators were included that focused on activity and uses of the river.
The river has changed. The land has changed. Change - too much, too quickly. As a result habitats and species mix have changed. Linkages are being broken - mountains to sea. From river to land. The stability is lost. When you look on the banks and inland to the lands adjacent to the river you see instability - habitats change, overfishing, introduced species (G. Thomas).
Mahinga kai in its truest concept is not just the food thing ... a healthy river; healthy environment is healthy people (Williams).
3.3.3 Mahinga kai indicators
Each interviewee was also asked to explain how they would assess the appropriateness/ suitability of a site for mahinga kai. Some started by reiterating their earlier comments, confirming that a number of the indicators of cultural health are also seen as indicators of mahinga kai.
Indicators of mahinga kai included the following:
- water quality throughout the catchment
- riparian vegetation
- sediment on the riverbed stones and gravels
- abundant and diverse range of mahinga kai (fish) species
- abundant and diverse range of mahinga kai (bird) species
- abundant and diverse range of mahinga kai (plant) species
- condition and size of fish
- fish are safe to eat
- water is safe to drink
- river is able to be accessed
- ability to harvest species of choice
- ability to harvest using methods of preference.
The justifications for all but the final three indicators are provided in the previous section. In the paragraphs set out below we have included quotes from those interviewed that we believe justify the inclusion of the final three indicators.
River is able to be accessed
One issue of particular concern to interviewees was the inability to access mahinga kai. Access includes three distinct aspects: physical access, access to particular species, and using traditional methods to gather the species.
Adverse effects intensify as you move downstream. Lowland areas, especially the estuaries that we fished, the traditional sites for mahinga kai are the worst affected. The sites that remain unmodified are those in the headwaters that are hard to access (Williams).
There is too much competition. Areas untouched, unmodified, in good quality, stable - are in the headwaters and may not have been traditionally fished (Broad).
People need to walk to the rivers and that's a help for people too. If we have tracks down the sides of our rivers for vehicles the health of our river, well it is basically not there (Davis).
Ability to harvest mahinga kai species of choice
While the previous indicator addresses the issue of physical access, this indicator focuses on the issue of access to particular species - in particular the ability to harvest species of traditional significance. The following statements highlight that the ability to access traditional sites and harvest the mahinga kai species that were there in the past is a concern.
The species mix has changed. We can't always access and catch what we want. With eels, we used to fish the lowland areas. These are now fished out. How far do we have to go to get a feed? (Reihana).
They overfish the streams. We can't access our traditional sites and if we could is there anything to catch? The species have changed and the numbers have changed (D. Tipa).
Mahinga kai is a practice and a principle. It includes a developmental aspect. We should not be limited to 1840 sites and species. We know the sites but the species change (O'Connell).
Ability to harvest mahinga kai using methods of preference
Another issue of particular concern to interviewees was the inability to continue to use traditional methods of harvest.
We can't use our methods. We can't go to our sites - we need to ask permission. The species we used to catch have changed (Reihana).
We know what the river supported. The traditional methods of managing/harvesting are not permitted (e.g. they cull swans and geese - we would take the eggs). That will limit numbers. We are limited to having an interest in traditional species but there have been impacts. We should be able to develop and take species that have replaced our traditional ones (O'Connell).
From the above statements it is apparent that the focus for an assessment of mahinga kai has to be wider than the river environment itself. It has to consider the health of the site, the species available, and the ability to undertake the activity of harvesting mahinga kai.
3.4 The recording form and data collection
3.4.1 Designing the recording form
On the basis of information in section 3.3, a recording form was developed for runanga members to assess the health and mahinga kai at each stream site (Appendix 1). All the indicators used on the sheet can be traced back to the interviews with kaumatua and iwi resource managers.
Because the objective was to develop a quantitative index, we needed to:
- make a clear distinction between positive and negative statements
- introduce ratings of 1-5
- ask for an overall assessment of stream health (1-5) on which to base an evaluation of the contribution each indicator makes to overall stream health.
3.4.2 Data collection
Three generations were represented in the runanga teams: kaumatua, pakeke and rangatahi. Each team comprised at least five members. Some days we took additional personnel into the field when husbands, sons, daughters and nephews chose to accompany us. This confirmed that the process was inclusive, accommodating and straightforward.
An unexpected outcome from the fieldwork was the positive effect participating in the study had on runanga members. No data were collected on this aspect of the fieldwork, although this sort of project does lend itself to the collection of qualitative data about social and cultural outcomes.
Each runanga member used the recording form to complete a field assessment of stream health and mahinga kai at each stream site. Data were gathered for 16 sites in the Kakaunui catchment and 30 sites in the Taieri catchment during the 2000/01 summer. The rating information from each of the recording sheets was collated into a spreadsheet for analysis.
Compiling the mahinga kai information required access to historical as well as contemporary data. Lists of species that were traditionally harvested from the sites were compiled from interviews with runanga members and from the written records of Ngai Tahu. As an iwi, Ngai Tahu have access to substantial written records. Collection of this information could have taken significantly longer to collect if Māori Land Court minute books and the records held by individual whanau members had had to be researched. For contemporary data on plant and bird species, runanga members listed on the recording form the mahinga kai plant and bird species present in the vicinity of the site.
Because it was not possible for runanga members to directly observe fish at each site, sampling was required to identify the presence of mahinga kai fish species. Electric fishing [One of the electric fishers was a Ngai Tahu PhD candidate from the University of Otago.] was carried out at all sites, with fish species being identified and returned to the stream alive. At larger sites, in lower river reaches, a combination of netting and electric fishing was used; netting was the only practical method of sampling in the deeper waters while electric fishing could take place along the edges.
