Search results

Ongoing land claims negotiations are creating areas of First Nation authority within and adjacent to many urban centres. Several government agencies and lobby groups have responded to these changes with discussion papers and toolkits, all implicitly or explicitly intended to help municipal and First Nation governments become better "neighbours." Using the theoretical and methodological insights found in critical discourse and interpretive policy analysis, this article examines the prevalence of this "neighbour-to-neighbour" discourse in municipal and other non-Indigenous policy, placing a particular focus on how it is used in land-use planning. I explore how these policy documents discursively construct and articulate a distinctly and deeply settler-colonial perspective on the desired relationship between First Nations and municipalities: one that has clear antecedents in liberal-economic notions of property, and that serves to conceal key aspects of Indigenous authority.

Ongoing land claims negotiations are creating areas of First Nation authority within and adjacent to many urban centres. Several government agencies and lobby groups have responded to these changes with discussion papers and toolkits, all implicitly or explicitly intended to help municipal and First Nation governments become better "neighbours." Using the theoretical and methodological insights found in critical discourse and interpretive policy analysis, this article examines the prevalence of this "neighbour-to-neighbour" discourse in municipal and other non-Indigenous policy, placing a particular focus on how it is used in land-use planning. I explore how these policy documents discursively construct and articulate a distinctly and deeply settler-colonial perspective on the desired relationship between First Nations and municipalities: one that has clear antecedents in liberal-economic notions of property, and that serves to conceal key aspects of Indigenous authority.

Acknowledgments -- Introduction : the challenge of indigenous coexistence for planning -- Concepts and contexts -- "We are all here to stay" : a "meditation on discomfort"--Seeing the contact zone : a methodology for analyzing links between everyday and textual practice -- Constructing contact zones : planning and recognition discourses in Victoria and British Columbia -- Stories of planning in (post)colonial Victoria & British Columbia -- The non-recognition of indigenous rights in metropolitan Melbourne -- Negotiating bounded recognition : seeking co-management on the river red gum flood plains -- Neighbour-to-neighbour planning relations along Vancouver's north shore -- Planning for wilp sustainability in the Nass and Skeena river watersheds -- Conceptualizing coexistence in planning theory and practice -- Negotiating, contesting, reframing : indigenous agency in the contact zone -- Bounded recognition : how planning resettles indigenous claims -- Developing intercultural capacity : lessons for planning practice -- Towards coexistence : rethinking planning for indigenous justice -- References

Participatory planning practice is changing in response to the rise of specially trained public participation practitioners who intersect with but are also distinct from planners. These practitioners are increasingly being professionalised through new standards of competence defined by their industry bodies. The implications of this are not well accounted for in empirical studies of participatory planning, nor in the theoretical literature that seeks to understand both the potential and problems of more deliberative approaches to urban decision-making. In this paper, we revisit the sociological literature on the professions and use it to critically interrogate an observed tension between the 'virtues' of public participation (justice, equity and democracy) and efforts to consolidate public participation practice into a distinct profession that interacts with but also sits outside of professional planning.

Indigenous peoples around the world are claiming and, in many cases, achieving recognition of their customary land rights, with significant challenges for planning systems. How should we understand both the nature of this demand and its politics of recognition? This article demonstrates how the insights and principles contained in political and democratic theory, along with a methodological framework inspired by Institutional Ethnography informs the conceptualization of what is happening between Indigenous peoples and planning systems in British settler-states. Using the highly evocative language of the 'contact zone' and an illustration from environmental planning in British Columbia, Canada, this article indicates how reading these theories together builds an approach for critically analysing the textual constraints placed on the social spaces where Indigenous peoples and state-based planning systems meet.

Recent political developments in many parts of the world seem likely to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the planetary-scale challenges of social polarization, inequality and environmental change societies face. In this unconventional multi-authored essay, we therefore seek to explore some of the ways in which planning theory might respond to the deeply unsettling times we live in. Taking the multiple, suggestive possibilities of the theme of unsettlement as a starting point, we aim to create space for reflection and debate about the state of the discipline and practice of planning theory, questioning what it means to produce knowledge capable of acting on the world today. Drawing on exchanges at a workshop attended by a group of emerging scholars in Portland, Oregon in late 2016, the essay begins with an introduction section exploring the contemporary resonances of 'unsettling' in, of and for planning theory. This is followed by four, individually authored responses which each connect the idea of unsettlement to key challenges and possible future directions. We end by calling for a reflective practice of theorizing that accepts unsettlement but seeks to act knowingly and compassionately on the uneven terrain that it creates. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Recent political developments in many parts of the world seem likely to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the planetary-scale challenges of social polarization, inequality and environmental change societies face. In this unconventional multi-authored essay, we therefore seek to explore some of the ways in which planning theory might respond to the deeply unsettling times we live in. Taking the multiple, suggestive possibilities of the theme of unsettlement as a starting point, we aim to create space for reflection and debate about the state of the discipline and practice of planning theory, questioning what it means to produce knowledge capable of acting on the world today. Drawing on exchanges at a workshop attended by a group of emerging scholars in Portland, Oregon in late 2016, the essay begins with an introduction section exploring the contemporary resonances of 'unsettling' in, of and for planning theory. This is followed by four, individually authored responses which each connect the idea of unsettlement to key challenges and possible future directions. We end by calling for a reflective practice of theorizing that accepts unsettlement but seeks to act knowingly and compassionately on the uneven terrain that it creates.