arielcamille

III. Boundary Lands: Contextualizing New Zealand cultural land disputes through borders

Capstone Proposal #3

Background: Land designation inevitably creates boundaries, defining an area through ownership, alterations, ideology, and use so that land is often a place for conflict, benign or not. Spatial and social boundaries are used to manage commons and regulate patterns of resource use and community dynamics (Fernandez-Gimenez 2002). The phenomenon of tragedy of the commons, originally in the context of population control, has been widely applied to resource management and the challenge of a common resource with no source of accountability (Hardin 1968). Recognizing land ownership and property rights- either of the government, and individual, or a community- may be done to mitigate this ecological exploitation problem (Fernandez-Gimenez),  to spur economic progress and tenure security for landholders (Otto & Hoekema 2011), or to recognize moral claims to the land (Bravo 1997). Property boundaries define legal rights to access the land and the resources within it (Schlager & Ostrom 1992). Therefore, these boundaries of land use are inevitable sites of dispute as actors disagree over what designation this land should take, with hierarchical power structures and dominant discourses influencing the outcome of these decisions.

National parks are interesting sites of this conflict as they have strong associated and implemented ideologies, most obviously Western conceptions of nature and land use, and therefore often clash with opposing land use perspectives (Wapner 2003). National parks are predicated on a conception of nature as a given physical entity separate from humans, implementing the duality of nature and culture that falls apart when confronted with the integration of this nature-culture divide in a society’s ideology (Olstad 2014). The Chipko movement in India, in which desire for local agency over timber use was mistaken for deep ecology ideology by local women, is an example of the extension of mental separation to public discourses and actions (Bandyopadhyay, 1999).

The naturalization of these boundaries corresponds to the construction of a conceptual boundary, delineating “inside” from the external world, which translates both literally and figuratively with Western nature ideology and decision-making authority (Fall 2002). The boundaries of “nature” in this conceptualization are reified into the legitimized boundaries of protected areas, leading to conflicts in the economic, ecological, and political management of those resources (Fall). These boundaries are also clearly applied to ecotourism, or “studying, admiring, or appreciating the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well any existing cultural manifestations” (Ryan 2003). In designating ecotourist areas and promoting the industry, the land and the people on it, are inherently demarcated as commodities, and as “others”.

Framing question: To what extent does land designation reflect Western hierarchies of power and conceptions of nature? What are the implications of this?

Situated Context: The Tieke Marae, in New Zealand’s Whanganui National Park, is a ceremonial Maori site for burials, meetings, and visitors that existed on Department of Conservation lands for twenty years (Levine 2011). It is the site of longstanding land protest in which a sale of the land to the government created miscommunication about the rightful owner of the land, the government or the Maori inhabitants (ibid). This situated context provides space to examine the interaction with government oversight on sacred sites, the power of contested boundaries, and the possible models for conflict resolution. With countless instances of global wrong-doing between dominant governments and indigenous populations, it is easy to dismiss the relationship at these sites as oppressive, and yet agencies, rather than legislatures or judicial institutions may be best able to work flexibly and with local knowledge to achieve “workable compromises” (Levine). By examining this context through the framework of boundaries, I am able to investigate how delineation creates insecurity when unclear and disputed, and how different understandings of land use are manifested and resolved.

Research Question:

In what ways were boundaries formed and how do they inform and influence eco-cultural land conflicts in the Tieke Marae in the Whanganui National Park?

Methodology:

  1. In and around the site:
    1. Survey of park-goers and surrounding residents (to reach a wide audience) on their perception of land management and boundaries
    2. Personal interviews in New Zealand of land management decision-makers in these parks and different community members’ perspectives
    3. Sample questions:
      1. What is your interaction with the park?
      2. Do you feel that the national park designation is important?
      3. Do  you value your experience with the biophysical environment or the cultural displays more? Do you think these experiences should be together or separate?
  1. Place these data points and anecdotes along different axes
      1. Indigenous participation (suppressed — meaningful)
      2. Broader public participation in determining land management policies
      3. How is land publicly presented within and outside of the boundary (recreation — sacred)
      4. Local residents perception of park (nuisance — benefit)
  1. Interpretation of land-management policy designations through environmental and social theory lens
  2. How policies fall between ideas of private property/land rights, intrinsic value/resource extraction, etc.
  3. GIS map of historical NZ land designation boundaries and how they’ve shifted, timeline  expanding upon these shifts
  4. I would like to include a spatial element in this study as it would ground the theoretical framework of boundaries to the land that these boundaries contain

Resources:

  1. Bandyopadhyay, Jayanta. “Chipko Movement: Of Floated Myths and Flouted Realities.” Economic and Political Weekly 34, no. 15 (1999): 880-82. 
  2. Bravo, Karen E. “Balancing Indigenous Rights to Land and the Demands of Economic Development: Lessons from the United States and Australia.” 30.4 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs.  (1997) 529- 586.
  3. Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science Vol. 16 no 3859. (Dec 1968): 1243-1248.
  4. Fall, Juliet. “Divide and Rule: Constructing Human Boundaries in ‘boundless Nature'” GeoJournal 58, no. 4 (2002): 243-51.
  5. Fernandez-Giminez, Maria. “Spatial and Social Boundaries and the Paradox of Pastoral Land Tenure: A Case Study from Postsocialist Mongolia.” Human Ecology, Vol. 30, No. 1. (March 2002).
  6. Levine, Hal B. “Tieke: Marae and/or Tourist Campsite? Confrontation and Cooperation in Whanganui National Park, New Zealand.” Anthropological Forum 21, no. 1 (March 2011): 43-56. 
  7. Olstad, Tyra A. “Civilizing nature: national parks in global historical perspective.” Journal of Cultural Geography 31, no. 1 (2014): 117+. 
  8. Otto, J.M., and A.J. Hoekema. Fair Land Governance, edited by J.M. Otto, and A.J. Hoekema, Leiden University Press, 2011. 
  9. Ryan, Chris. “Chapter 15: Dolphins, Canoes, and Marae: Ecotourism products in New Zealand.” Embracing and Managing Changes in Tourism. Routledge (2003): 289.
  10. Schlager, Edella and Elinor Ostrom. “Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis.” Land Economics Vol 68, No 3 (Aug 1998): 249-262.
  11. Wapner, Paul. “Leftist Criticism of ‘Nature’: Environmental Protection in a Postmodern Age”. Dissent (2003).

Leave a comment