Making space for reconciliation in the planning system

Abstract

Indigenous rights complicate state-led planning with potentially important transformative effects. While rights may grant a particular kind of access to planning venues to create opportunities for challenging prevailing policy views about reconciliation, these opportunities may also be vulnerable to planning system changes. Drawing upon the case of Haida Gwaii, this paper tells a story about a dispute over territorial rights that have been squeezed out of institutional venues for over a century. In seeking to have this dispute heard, the Haida Nation have sought out blockades and the courts, achieving a collaborative planning arrangement with the Province of British Columbia in 2009. These events are set in contrast to a more recent environmental assessment that was initiated by the Government of Canada to consider the controversial Northern Gateway (tar sands) pipeline and tanker project. It is argued that a series of environmental planning reforms tied to this project review are likely to impinge upon the very strategies used by the Haida Nation to achieve collaboration.

The effect of organisational absorptive capacity on business intelligence systems efficiency and organisational efficiency

“…BI systems efficiency is essential as a strategic source of high value, particularly if an organisation seeks to fully exploit BI systems facilities and capabilities for its strategic improvement in different departments (Beath et al , 2012; Galbraith, 2014).…”

Development On Railway Reserve Land: A Preliminary Study

“…In Mabo and Others v Queensland (No.2) [1992] 175 CLR 1, the High Court sanctioned the obligation of the developer in dealing with indigenous people before any development take place within the indigenous land. Full appreciation of the reservation concept must be advocated including the recognition of the indigenous to the land and the legal exploitation of the land reserved (Galbraith, 2014).…”

Who writes for Planning Theory & Practice and why?

“…It is to be hoped that the journal will continue to be at the forefront of scholarly development, for example by continuing the journal's strand of articles on indigenous rights and planning (recent examples include Jackson and Barber, 2013;Galbraith, 2014;Webster, 2016). Meanwhile it is noticeable that reviewers are asking for greater transparency on the research methodology of empirical articles and also for greater rigour in empirical analysis.…”