Planning in (Post)Colonial Settings: Challenges for Theory and Practice

Abstract

Planning processes that make space for Indigenous peoples in Australia appear to herald more inclusive and socially just practices, in the critical collaborative tradition, as they respond to Indigenous rights-claims and aspirations. The article describes a case in western Victoria where non-Indigenous planners are forging new relationships with Indigenous land claimant groups. The case extends current theorisations about more collaborative and socially just practices of planning in multicultural settings, and highlights the further theoretical and practical work to be done to fully realise the complexities of planning in (post)colonial settings.

Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada

“…A few examples already exist that support this position. For instance, Porter (2006) acknowledges that the use of the word stakeholders fails to recognize Indigenous peoples as the original owners of land, and that the colonial state wrested this from them. Similarly, Palmer (2006) discusses and recognizes the significance of a case in the Canadian north where an agreement between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian Crown was formed under a nation-to-nation relationship.…”

Finding Common Ground: A Critical Review of Land Use and Resource Management Policies in Ontario, Canada and their Intersection with First Nations

“…This type of normative planning diagram is shaped by a dominant non-First Nation assumption that reserves are a federal jurisdiction and that lands outside of a reserve's boundaries, including traditional territories, were honourably acquired and no longer of interest to First Nations (DeVries, 2011;Participant Two, personal communication, November 2, 2012). Additionally, major guiding acts and policy statements, including the Planning Act (1990), the Places to Grow Act (2005), the Greenbelt Act (2005), the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (1990), and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (2001), predominantly refer to First Nations at a minimum as just another "public body," which in itself is highly inadequate because it frames First Nations' concerns as one of many stakeholder concerns to consider (Barry & Porter, 2011;Porter, 2006;Sandercock, 2004).…”

Getting to Common Ground: A Comparison of Ontario, Canada’s Provincial Policy Statement and the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement with Respect to Indigenous Peoples

“…Direct recognition assists in the development of a greater awareness amongst the public at large of diverging histories and the importance of these differences to fostering and sustaining mutually beneficial treaty relations. While planning tends to be forward-thinking in the management of land and resources, it is vital to understand its colonial past in order to situate the practice in its cultural context (Porter, 2006).…”

“…The second question and set of indicators (Table 2) then examine the latent content of flagged sites of recognition to evaluate whether Indigenous peoples are framed by the discourse of policy statements as just another stakeholder (Healey, 1997) or as equal and active partners with equal footing in the planning process (RCAP, 1996;Borrows, 1997;Maaka & Fleras, 2005;Porter, 2006). Understanding what forms that recognition takes in policy statements gives further insight into how lower-tier planning authorities recognize and engage with Indigenous peoples and more generally, the continued existence of asymmetrical relations between dominant planning frameworks and Indigenous peoples (Hibbard et al, 2008).…”