Introduction

Ecological restoration, as we commonly understand it today, is shaped by Western environmentalism, where some argue that human-nature relationships are hierarchical (Kim et al., 2023). Both colonialism and capitalism have contributed to these hierarchical views through human-centric teachings and elevating human needs above that of nature (Miller, 2019). This thinking, which is further compounded by urban drift and people’s physical disconnection to the natural environment, feeds western Eurocentric beliefs of resource use and extraction for human consumption and benefit (Whitmee et al., 2015). Viewing the natural world as a resource to be exploited has resulted in the depletion and degradation of natural environments and biodiversity, causing a loss of knowledge, opportunities for connection, and harming sustainable practices by local communities (Sena et al., 2022).

Differing from this belief system, Indigenous Peoples see themselves as part of nature. Kinship and ideas of lineage ground this view and inform indigenous identity, cultural knowledge, practice, and decision-making processes for their territories (Sarmiento & Hitchner, 2017). Therefore, nature is critical for Indigenous Peoples’ physical, spiritual, and cultural sustenance (Walker et al., 2024). This relationship with nature encourages reciprocal well-being between people and place, contrary to more exploitative and economically driven approaches (Gon et al., 2018). With the expansion of colonial empires, foreign systems and knowledge were imported into countries such as Aotearoa New Zealand (Aotearoa) to instigate control over resources, lands, and people (Moewaka Barnes & McCreanor, 2019). These systems changed how local communities engaged with nature and heavily impacted long-held kinship perspectives of indigenous communities (Walker et al., 2024).

Likewise, restoration planning both internationally and in Aotearoa uses Eurocentric scientific ecological understanding, which aims to restore nature to a prehuman state (Atkinson, 1994; Higgs et al., 2014; Dickson-Hoyle et al., 2022). Recreating natural habitats that are ecologically self-sustaining and reactivating natural succession encourages “self-maintaining communities and is therefore system-oriented rather than species-oriented” (Atkinson, 1994). There is a growing body of literature that now advocates for indigenous knowledge and approaches to environmental restoration and planning, particularly here in Aotearoa (Harmsworth & Awatere, 2013; Walker et al., 2019; Wallace & Clarkson, 2019; Williams et al., 2019; Hall et al., 2021; Moewaka Barnes et al., 2021; Walker et al., 2024). Although both indigenous and western perspectives may seem at odds with each other, weaving these two systems could support equitable nature engagement, management, and care (Morishige et al., 2018; Hall et al., 2021). Recognizing the value of both knowledge systems is critical to ensure that neither consumes nor assimilates the other (Macfarlane & Macfarlane, 2019). Moreover, the utilization of both knowledge systems as shared by Macfarlane and Macfarlane (2019) through the Braided River Approach, can expand the knowledge we create on a given topic. Moreover, He Waka Taurua Framework also highlights this critical opportunity for innovation to develop through mutual knowledge sharing (Maxwell et al., 2020). Providing new tools for solving complex environmental issues through indigenous and Western synergies may also benefit restoration efforts in more unconventional spaces, such as urban areas.

Globally, urban spaces populate 3% of the earth’s land surface and are expected to increase by 0.6% per year (Ferreira et al., 2018). Additionally, peri-urban spaces are rapidly expanding by four times the amount of designated urban area (Ferreira et al., 2018). With urban expansion, degradation of remnant natural areas is increasing, contributing to a rise in flooding, soil depletion, pressure and competition for natural resources, loss of vegetation, and the depletion of important biodiversity (Ferreira et al., 2018; Seifollahi-Aghmiuni et al., 2022). These challenges not only cause great concern for biodiversity sustainability, but they may also have economic and cultural costs to cities and their citizens.

Indigenous Peoples’ face barriers and challenges in the urban space, especially those related to nature access. Urban spaces are built on the foundations of settler colonialism, racial capitalism, and dispossession (Mays, 2023). Disconnection to cultural knowledge and practice, assimilation into western society, fragmented access to nature, as well as increased socio-economic pressures are symptoms of settler colonial tools and have contributed to urban spaces limiting opportunities for indigenous well-being (Puketapu-Dentice et al., 2017; Berg-Nordlie et al., 2022). Migration to urban spaces is driven by many factors, some more extreme than others; however, all have serious impacts upon Indigenous Peoples’ opportunity to live well. Forced removal and displacement from lands, limiting access to resources, changes, and loss of traditional economic activities, can place pressures on Indigenous Peoples’ to seek welfare elsewhere (Berg-Nordlie et al., 2022). Moreover, growing issues of discrimination and racism within the rural sector also contribute to these increasing pressures to migrate to urban areas as Indigenous Peoples’ seek places of refuge (Berg-Nordlie et al., 2022). For tribal groups whose homes were desecrated to build urban spaces, relationships to these areas are sometimes restricted through physical and non-physical measures (Nejad et al., 2019). Therefore, accessing important areas may not be possible due to urban expansion and development, which often do not prioritize indigenous knowledge in urban space construction (Porter, 2013a).

The polarity of urban spaces is evident in their role of assimilation and reconciliation of Indigenous Peoples’ to their language, culture, and people (Porter, 2013a; Nejad et al., 2019; Avalos, 2022). However, these areas have not provided for the full and exclusive exercise of indigenous rights to nature, cultural practice and knowledge, and critically, to decision-making for cities. This lack of indigenous inclusion is also driven by a widely held perspective that Indigenous Peoples’ are heavily aligned and associated with rural areas (James, 2013; Berg-Nordlie et al., 2022). This makes it difficult to include Indigenous People in transforming urban areas and further limits the opportunity to see the value of traditional knowledge within a modern context.

In recognizing these disparities, indigenous communities are engaging with urbanism in a variety of ways, which include the need to restore connection to nature, culture, spirit, and knowledge (Nejad et al., 2019; Rodgers et al., 2023; Walker et al., 2024). This reclamation process argues for indigenous rights to the city and the opportunity to reimagine cities that are not only inclusive of Indigenous Peoples’ but are further shaped and maintained by such communities (Nejad et al., 2019; Rodgers et al., 2023). As large populations of Indigenous Peoples’ now live in urban areas, the inclusion of indigenous communities in decision-making must be far-reaching, including within decisions pertaining to nature restoration in the city (Walker et al., 2019; Walker et al., 2024).

This review presents indigenous experiences from Aotearoa and beyond, which display the value of indigenous approaches for ecological restoration. We focus on the experiences of Māori people (the Indigenous People of Aotearoa) to discuss both the challenges and opportunities for urban transformation and ecological restoration. Critically, we highlight struggles evident in both the planning and governance experiences of Māori and argue for restoration in cities to entail transformative processes for Indigenous Peoples and nature, to mitigate inequitable access to nature, its care, and sustainability in urban areas.

Methods

We undertook a literature review for this paper, where a selection of works was examined to draw out key arguments and themes relevant to indigenous urban restoration. Sources gathered ranged from peer-reviewed articles, newspaper writings, reports, and video transcripts. The review of literature was undertaken in two stages. Our initial review pertaining to indigenous urban restoration presented key overarching topics, which are noted as the origins of restoration, Indigenous Peoples’ relationships to nature, Indigenous Peoples’ and cities, and urban planning. We used these topics to guide our continued search of literature to understand how Indigenous Peoples’ and their specialized knowledge and experiences could enhance and support the restoration of urban areas. Two subsequent topics developed from this final search, which are noted as challenges for Indigenous People and nature, as well as opportunities for urban indigenous restoration. These overarching themes also highlighted ideas of indigenous rights to the city of which we have also discussed throughout this review.

Each piece of literature sourced was categorized according to these topics. Over 180 sources were reviewed for this paper, ranging from topics such as restoration, indigenous knowledge, Indigenous rights, biocultural restoration, indigenous planning, indigenous urbanism, as well as wider examples of Indigenous Peoples’ and restoration practices. The selected sources were put into an Excel spreadsheet where the citation, key ideas expressed in the paper, and any key quotes from the piece of literature were extracted. In addition, the selected materials derive from both Indigenous and non-indigenous scholars. A summary of the main themes shared in this paper is captured in Table 1.

Table 1 A summary of the four key themes of this research is captured in this table.
Full size table

Throughout this paper, we have capitalized the words ‘Indigenous People’ to recognize the strong place-based connections of such communities and to distinguish Indigenous Peoples from other groups of people. All authors of this paper share Māori ancestry, and therefore, we have chosen Aotearoa as the prime focus for much of our literature search. As indigenous researchers, we believe sharing insights from Aotearoa will contribute to global discourse on enhancing ecological restoration efforts in cities. Aotearoa has a detailed history of Māori, Crown, and government engagement pertaining to resource use and management. These interactions provide examples of emerging challenges and opportunities for urban ecological restoration yet to be explored. We recognize the bias that this may present in our work, but believe that there are valuable lessons that can be shared from a Māori perspective. As a case study, Aotearoa provides examples of mechanisms in resource management, planning and restoration, city governance, and co-governance arrangements, where indigenous knowledge has been of value as well as challenged. In addition, there are growing issues currently underway in Aotearoa that may be beneficial to the wider global audience for analysis. Additionally, we have drawn on sources from Indigenous Peoples of Australia, Bolivia, Canada, Ecuador, Hawai’i, and the USA to further support the overall argument of our paper.

People, nature, and colonization

Indigenous Peoples’ relationship to nature is detailed through stories of lineage to gods, ancestors, landscapes, and tribal territories, essentially declaring nature as kin (Morishige et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2021; Warbrick et al., 2023a). This connection to nature informs Indigenous Peoples’ responsibility for nature's care and protection (Turner et al., 2022). The cultural knowledge held by indigenous communities is place-specific and developed over millennia, not only through observation made in place but also through cultural practice and stewardship roles (Pascual et al., 2022; Turner et al., 2022). Harvesting of foods and resources, gardening, storytelling, weaving, carving, astronomy, and sailing, as well as the restoration and conservation of natural areas, embody the important relationship between Indigenous People and nature (Evans, 2011; Matamua, 2017; Turner, 2020; Turner et al., 2022). These practices develop, test, and refine local Indigenous knowledge and ensure that nature relationships are protected and relevant for current and future generations (Coté, 2015; Reed et al., 2022; Warbrick et al., 2023b). Maintaining these various opportunities for the expression of knowledge, practice, and relationships to nature is seen widely across the globe by Indigenous Peoples’ of Africa, Australia, Canada, Latin America, wider Oceania, and Aotearoa, each with a unique understanding and relationship to their locales (Watene, 2022).

In Aotearoa, approaches for the management of natural resources and space governance have not always included a holistic perspective, and further lacked acknowledgement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a treaty signed in 1840 between Māori chiefs and the British Crown (Matunga et al., 2013; Ryks et al., 2014). Historically, planning mechanisms and nature management in Aotearoa were based on the foundations of colonialism, developing spaces to benefit settlers that also reflect Western values (Higgins, 2010; Matunga et al., 2013; Miller, 2018). These mechanisms for planning had previously been unchallenged, with limited acknowledgement of partnership between Māori and Pākehā (non-Māori living in Aotearoa) (Awatere et al., 2013), and pressingly, the important role of nature for human well-being. Therefore, planning processes in Aotearoa have favored heritage, design, and governance models that perpetuate Western ideologies, maintain power by local governments, and essentially discourage the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, especially the principles of participation and partnership (Awatere et al., 2013; Matunga et al., 2013; Hill, 2024). The neglect of Māori in planning processes has been fueled by societal beliefs of Māori as rural and a wider lack of knowledge about Māori rights and Te Tiriti obligations (Higgins, 2010). Disregarding Māori in decision-making processes has resulted in the desecration of wāhi tapu (sacred sites), the loss of important cultural sites for physical and spiritual sustenance, the neglect of Māori aspirations for urban areas, damage to natural resources within tribal territories and further, the loss of autonomy by Māori over their ancestral lands and waters (Miller, 2018; Tait-Wall et al., 2022). These actions only add to the already strained view by Māori of planning processes in Aotearoa.

Legislative challenges for Māori

Addressing environmental issues in Aotearoa has been initiated through legislation, however, these mechanisms often fall short of full support for Māori in managing resources. In 1991, the Resource Management Act (RMA) was developed to protect the health of nature and to support Māori involvement in natural resource decision-making (Environment, 1991; O’Bryan, 2018). However, the RMA has been heavily scrutinized by Māori for its weak wording, misinterpretation of Māori concepts, lowering the urgency to include Māori as partners in decision-making, perpetuating anachronistic views of Māori, limiting opportunities for urban reform, as well as misrepresenting the promises made in Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Mikaere, 1994; Kawharu, 2000; O’Bryan, 2018; Fisher & Parsons, 2020). Although the RMA contains sections that aim to support Māori engagement in decision-making, it has not encouraged autonomy by Māori over their tribal territories (Kawharu, 2000; Vince, 2006). Even with legislative cues that transfer decision-making authority to Māori, such as Section 33 of the act, these are often not applied by local authorities (O’Bryan, 2018). Even so, new legislative measures through the Local Electoral Act (LEA) to establish Māori wards aim to remedy issues of Māori participation in decision making. Māori wards across Aotearoa increased from 3 to 34 through the LEA, which has supported opportunities for participation by Māori communities in local government decision-making (Tribunal, 2024). However, like the challenges of the RMA, Māori wards are at risk as the current New Zealand coalition government looks to roll back Māori rights with proposed referendums on established Māori wards (Parliament, 2024a).

Legislation prioritizing economic growth over environmental care can also severely impact Indigenous People’s ability to protect nature, especially when it undermines their input about traditional lands and resources (Rout et al., 2021). The introduction of the Fast Track Approvals Bill (Parliament, 2024b) contributes to the erosion of Māori rights and interests to protect nature by stifling crucial voices in favor of perceived economic growth gains. Additionally, the Fast Track Approvals Bill directly opposes New Zealand’s recent initiative to develop a Biodiversity Strategy, Te Mana o Te Taiao (TMOTT) (New Zealand Government, 2020). This strategy emphasizes the necessity of collective action among diverse groups to achieve optimal outcomes for nature in Aotearoa (New Zealand Government, 2020). Disregarding these efforts for collective action and focusing solely on economic needs will only harm the livelihoods of local communities and, critically, the health of nature. Despite the current regressive political environment and legislative changes in Aotearoa, Māori rights to enact autonomy over natural resources and empower Māori communities to live out their roles as kaitiaki of nature are still needed, given the developing environmental challenges in Aotearoa. Pressingly, complex environments like urban spaces may exacerbate environmental issues, and therefore, the inclusion of Māori in decisions for these spaces is imperative.

Urbanization and the exclusion of Indigenous People

Urbanization has contributed immensely to colonial processes that have aided in the separation of Indigenous Peoples from their cultural heritage, sites of significance, languages, cultural practices, knowledge systems, and opportunities to connect with nature (Puketapu-Dentice et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2019; Turner et al., 2022). Migration from rural and remote communities to the city continues to increase, with some countries such as Aotearoa and Canada having over 80% of their indigenous populations now living in cities (Ryks et al., 2014; Puketapu-Dentice et al., 2017). Cities are tainted with negative experiences by Indigenous People, some of which were executed through legislative measures, deliberate bans of Indigenous People, renaming important natural features, construction of monuments that celebrate colonial heritage, and the alteration of traditional boundaries (Wilson & Peters, 2005; Ryks et al., 2014). Urbanization has also impacted those whose homes and territories were desecrated and built over for the good and well-being of colonial settlers (Ryks et al., 2014; Porter & Barry, 2015). Indigenous People were therefore forced to choose between assimilation into the general urban population or being directed toward reservations, severing ties to their traditional homes (Horn, 2018; Hernandez & Vogt, 2020). Assimilation into urban areas also demanded Indigenous Peoples’ refutation of traditional cultural practices, knowledge, and language (Wilson & Peters, 2005; Mays, 2022). These acts drove settler colonial discourse, positioning urban spaces as frontiers of modern society, devoid of indigenous ways (Mays, 2022; Dorries, 2023). Consequently, anachronistic views of Indigenous People surfaced, further diminishing opportunities for indigenous expression in cities (Porter, 2013b; Barry & Thompson-Fawcett, 2020; Mays, 2022; Anderson et al., 2023). Maintaining this divide has been achieved through embedding Western values into the urban fabric to reflect the architecture, design principles, and the fundamental values of the West (Walker et al., 2017). Western planning approaches and mechanisms, such as mapping, zoning, and regulating, contribute to this maintenance of power structures by determining permitted activities within designated spaces (Porter & Barry, 2015). These tools claim the city for the Western gaze, erasing any trace of indigenous place names, sites of significance, territories, and disregarding the deep-held connections of Indigenous Peoples’ to these areas (Porter et al., 2017). What is known as the ‘cultural heritage’ of the city will largely ignore the Indigenous fabric that lies beneath the concrete (Porter, 2013b; Walker et al., 2017). Therefore, planning, governance, and current decision-making mechanisms for cities can perpetuate unequal power distribution between the state and Indigenous People (Wilson & Peters, 2005; Dorries, 2023). These tools determine whose voices are prioritized in city decision-making, often excluding marginalized groups like Indigenous People (Porter, 2013b). Recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ as more than stakeholders will encourage relationships between municipal entities and Indigenous Peoples’ that move beyond surface-level engagement, challenging the maintenance of unfair power structures and the disregard for Indigenous Peoples’ expertise (Walker et al., 2017; Hernandez & Vogt, 2020). Moreover, ensuring that indigenous knowledge and understanding of such a community’s connection to nature and the lands upon which urban spaces exist is imperative for urban planning transformation (Awatere et al., 2013; Puketapu-Dentice et al., 2017). This can also pave the way to recognize nature as kin and thus, encourage the practice of important stewardship practices for urban areas (Walker et al., 2019).

Counter to these challenges are various examples of Indigenous Peoples’ in cities engaging in the transformation of urban space through housing development, legislation change, co-management arrangements, placemaking in cities, arts and design, as well as supporting the well-being of indigenous communities in urban areas (Awatere et al., 2013; Puketapu-Dentice et al., 2017; Horn, 2018; Barry & Thompson-Fawcett, 2020; Avalos, 2022; Kiddle et al., 2023). The resurgence of indigenous identity within urban spaces is often led by grassroots movements, community hubs, and wider indigenous movements for self-determination (Avalos, 2022). Likewise, tribal entities are now working to ensure the return and management of tribal lands to their communities through active reclamation and engagement with municipal entities (Barry & Thompson-Fawcett, 2020). Reclamation of lands is not only about the idea of returning assets to Indigenous Peoples’ but also about recognizing the rights of Indigenous People to care for and govern space and place, even in cities (Njoh, 2017). These efforts indicate the agency for Indigenous Peoples’ to maintain important cultural knowledge, practice, and connection to nature in cities. Furthermore, it illuminates the deep-seated systemic issues in urban areas that may harm marginalized people.

However, recognition of such valuable knowledge and relationships to nature in cities is not always encouraged and maintained by those in power, and cities should be active in the pursuit of securing space for indigenous communities’ voices at decision-making tables (Walker et al., 2024). Urban ecological restoration efforts can support Indigenous Peoples' cultural needs and increase urban appreciation for indigenous knowledge (Hall et al., 2021; Rodgers et al., 2023; Walker et al., 2024). Avoiding exclusionary patterns of indigenous communities in urban ecological restoration can foster relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous communities in cities through a shared appreciation of nature (Rodgers et al., 2023; Walker et al., 2024). Critically, it points to the need to ensure that legislative measures are in place to actively support these types of partnership arrangements.

Indigenous knowledge and leadership in the ecological restoration space allow questions to be raised about whose values are being perpetuated in urban areas through restoration work and, pressingly, who may be discounted through these initiatives (Kamelamela et al., 2022b; Walker et al., 2024). This thinking prompts us to be critical of who benefits and who is at risk of becoming vulnerable in urban restoration activities and critically, how top down approaches could harm the valuable work already being undertaken by restoration practitioners alongside indigenous communities (Hernandez & Vogt, 2020; Kamelamela et al., 2022a; Nelson & Rosenberg, 2022; Rodgers et al., 2023). It is possible for indigenous rights to nature to flourish through restoration work and ensure both the care of natural areas in cities and support the sustainability of cultural knowledge, practice, and relationships to the natural world (Rodgers et al., 2023).

Opportunities for Indigenous People through urban restoration

The incorporation of indigenous values into approaches for restoration can help in addressing the neglect of indigenous knowledge but may also provide new ways to determine and undertake restoration activities (Kainamu-Murchie et al., 2018). Values-based approaches recognize the disruption of colonization and modernization on Indigenous Peoples’ and actively work to remedy relationships and opportunities for connection to place and knowledge (Lyver et al., 2016; Kainamu-Murchie et al., 2018). These approaches support a space for learning, bridging both indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge and tools (Hall et al., 2021). Projects that utilize a values-based approach have a high likelihood of being accepted and maintained by local communities as they intertwine local histories, stewardship roles, as well as important considerations of place, culture, language, and practice (Hall et al., 2021; Paul-Burke et al., 2022). Both terrestrial and aquatic forms of restoration can benefit from a values-based approach, as seen in works by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei in the restoration of urban forest in Auckland, Waikato river restoration undertaken by Waikato-Tainui, as well as estuarine shellfish restoration by Ngāi Tahu (Te Aho, 2011; Hall et al., 2021; Paul-Burke et al., 2022). These efforts can also manifest into commitments by civic institutions, as seen in the work to rebuild Christchurch post-earthquake (Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, 2012). The recovery plan recognizes the vital connection shared between Ngāi Tahu and their traditional territories, details how support of local indigenous communities can be achieved whilst also providing for the needs of the wider urban population (Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, 2012). Like these arrangements, the treaty settlements process, established through the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act (New Zealand Government, 1975), have also contributed to new frontiers for Māori involvement in the management of resources, like the recognition of personhood of natural features such as the Te Urewera Act 2014 and Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, the development of co-management and co-governance arrangements and importantly, the return of lands and taonga to Māori (New Zealand Government, 2014, 2017). These types of arrangements that encourage co-management, sharing of responsibility, and maintaining connections to nature and culture embody the spirit of collectivism and should also be reflected in the ways we plan for and restore nature in cities.

The partnership story in these examples captures the benefit of harnessing diversity in knowledge for the benefit of creating cities of the future, but also shows that this type of governance sharing is not new. Values that are of immense importance to local Māori communities, such as Kaitiakitanga, Rangatiratanga, Tūrangawaewae, Mana Whakahaere, and Whakapapa, in addition to wider cultural, social, and economic values, can transform how cities are planned and the relationships created through such processes (Te Aho, 2011; Kainamu-Murchie et al., 2018; Maxwell et al., 2018). This not only allows reconnection to important value systems and knowledge but also addresses some limitations where cultural practice and knowledge may be disregarded (Michel et al., 2019). Critically, such examples show the significant role of partnership for supporting Indigenous Peoples’ aspirations in cities, especially those related to nature’s care and restoration. Furthermore, the need to ensure that legislation, planning, and restoration are woven with the threads of partnership between indigenous and non-indigenous communities is imperative. This must entail addressing the pressing issues faced by marginalized groups in cities and partnering with them to create equitable and enriching solutions for urban challenges (Rodgers et al., 2023). It further argues for ecological restoration that not only restores nature but also restores people to their rich cultural knowledge and practices (Walker et al., 2024).

There is potential for transformative urban restoration approaches that include Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge. However, across the world, Indigenous Peoples are still experiencing challenges that limit their role as agents of change in urban spaces. Colonial thinking and racism are still evident in the barriers to effective indigenous leadership in planning and governance of cities and countries (Anderson et al., 2023). These barriers are further exacerbated when racist rhetoric is utilized to create unease in urban peoples about indigenous involvement in development, co-governance, and leadership, harming engagement initiatives between Indigenous Peoples and local authorities (Te Punaha Matatini, 2020). Moreover, engagement initiatives may still limit and restrain the expression of indigenous participation in city decision-making. For example, joint and co-management arrangements provide benefits for Indigenous Peoples to be at the decision-making table, but within the confines of Western processes (Porter, 2013b). Likewise, the urban planning process may include Indigenous People but only for matters pertaining to cultural heritage or street art and not the overall governance of cities (Porter, 2013b). Restoration of nature through a values-led indigenous approach provides a foundation to physically transform nature in cities while also encouraging the transformation of partnerships between indigenous communities and local municipal institutions. It brings to the fore the challenges for equitable partnerships and decision-making while using nature as the vehicle to bridge these differences.

Concluding remarks

Ongoing challenges for Indigenous Peoples’ relationships to nature are evolving in cities. Māori are reconciling the injustices caused by colonization by advocating for better mechanisms for inclusion in matters related to natural resources in Aotearoa. Sound legislation, grassroots movements, and settlement processes all capture a common thread of recognizing and supporting Māori to flourish while ensuring the protection and care of cultural practices and knowledge. This, however, has not always translated into on-the-ground action, and this is particularly evident within urban design and planning, where both Western and Māori approaches to city planning and needs may differ. However, progress by civil institutions to recognize Māori participation in urbanism is at risk of being rolled back as a conservative agenda that discriminates against Māori is implemented. For Indigenous Peoples globally, there is potential to overcome growing challenges associated with urban spaces through intertwining knowledge and practice into urbanism through restoration activities. However, this may be difficult in places where exclusion of Indigenous Peoples has resulted in complete severance from their traditional lands, a growing disdain for indigenous perspectives, and an increasing hunger for global development and resource use. The examples from Aotearoa show that these types of partnerships between Indigenous Peoples and civic institutions can be achieved, but require commitment from civic institutions and the guaranteed protection and sustainability of indigenous cultural knowledge and practice into the future. Moreover, supporting Indigenous Peoples to lead these changes for cities and nature will further ensure the appropriate incorporation of such knowledge into city planning, law, and the restoration of nature. Therefore, advocacy for values-based solutions and indigenous leadership must also be lifted by civic institutions. This also requires engagement with indigenous communities in ways that recognize the significance of their knowledge while providing space for the expression of this knowledge to create innovative ways for urban ecological restoration. Local indigenous knowledge and practice, partnered with sound ecological restoration knowledge, will provide the new tools required to meet the ever-evolving challenges for nature in our cities.