Indigenous Planning: from Principles to Practice/A Revolutionary Pedagogy of/for Indigenous Planning/Settler-Indigenous Relationships as Liminal Spaces in Planning Education and Practice/Indigenist Planning/What is the Work of Non-Indigenous People in the Service of a Decolonizing Agenda?/Supporting Indigenous Planning in the City/Film as a Catalyst for Indigenous Community Development/Being Ourselves and Seeing Ourselves in the City: Enabling the Conceptual Space for Indigenous Urban Planning/Universities

Porter, Libby; Matunga, Hirini P.; Viswanathan, Leela; Patrick, Lyana; Walker, Ryan; Sandercock, Leonie; Moraes, Dana; Frantz, Jonathan M.; Thompson‐Fawcett, Michelle; Riddle, Callum; Jojola, Theodore S.

doi:10.1080/14649357.2017.1380961

Cited by 45 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dorries, 2012;Freitas, 2015;Ugarte Urzua, 2018), and a growing number of journal articles (c.f. Dorries, 2017;Hibbard et al, 2008;Livesey, 2019;Matunga, 2017;Patrick, 2017;Porter & Barry, 2015) including those that have attempted to take a more bird's-eye view of the planning field. Sandercock's (2004) introduction to an Interface for the journal Planning Theory & Practice, in which she invited researchers/practitioners to opine on the nexus between Indigeneity and planning, represents one example of this emerging body of scholarship.…”

Section: Urban Planning Theory's Encounters With Indigeneity: Identifying the Gap In Us Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, as Porter's work (Porter, 2010) on British settler-colonials states (and on Australia in particular) illustrates, planning is both deeply entwined with ongoing colonial projects and a potential site for unlearning the epistemological and ontological foundation of planning that undermine and exclude Indigenous authorities and ways of knowing. As several Indigenous scholars note, the word "planning" can also be used to describe a more general set of human activities about both the present and the future (Matunga, 2017) and they have made the case that Indigenous peoples' longstanding and culturally derived modes of organizing their communities and their relations to the natural world need to be understood as acts of planning. The two most frequently cited voices in this field are Maori Matunga (2017Matunga ( , 2013 and Pueblo Jojola (2008Jojola ( , 1998; however, important contributions have also been made by Freitas (2015), Harjo (2019), andPatrick (2017).…”

Section: Urban Planning Theory's Encounters With Indigeneity: Identifying the Gap In Us Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As several Indigenous scholars note, the word "planning" can also be used to describe a more general set of human activities about both the present and the future (Matunga, 2017) and they have made the case that Indigenous peoples' longstanding and culturally derived modes of organizing their communities and their relations to the natural world need to be understood as acts of planning. The two most frequently cited voices in this field are Maori Matunga (2017Matunga ( , 2013 and Pueblo Jojola (2008Jojola ( , 1998; however, important contributions have also been made by Freitas (2015), Harjo (2019), andPatrick (2017). Important interventions have also been made from outside the planning field.…”

Section: Urban Planning Theory's Encounters With Indigeneity: Identifying the Gap In Us Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On belonging and becoming in the settler-colonial city: Co-produced futurities, placemaking, and urban planning in the United States

Barry

Agyeman

2020

Journal of Race, Ethnicity and the City

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With a few notable exceptions, settler-colonial theory has not been applied to the study of U.S. cities and urban planning. Settler-colonial theory is a relatively new field of scholarship that interrogates the destruction of Indigenous laws, ways of knowing, and connections to place to make way for a new settler futurity. This futurity is particularly pronounced in cities, where Indigenous peoples have been rendered almost completely invisible and where their opportunities to shape urban development are highly circumscribed. We use settler-colonial theory, as well as Indigenous scholars' responses to it, to extend ideas of belonging and becoming in urban planning and placemaking. We turn to the theory and practice of co-production as one possible intervention into how the relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous placemakers could be conceived and enacted in the urban environment.. . . to think of the United States as a settler society illuminates forms of power that organize American and American Indian lives in perhaps unexpected ways.

show abstract

Section: Urban Planning Theory's Encounters With Indigeneity: Identifying the Gap In Us Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Urban Planning Theory's Encounters With Indigeneity: Identifying the Gap In Us Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Urban Planning Theory's Encounters With Indigeneity: Identifying the Gap In Us Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On belonging and becoming in the settler-colonial city: Co-produced futurities, placemaking, and urban planning in the United States

Barry

Agyeman

2020

Journal of Race, Ethnicity and the City

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such a history also has to admit the ongoing resistance to such practices and acknowledge the fundamental changes to the planning system now introduced through native title and heritage regimes. But as Indigenous scholars such as Behrendt (2006Behrendt ( , 2008Behrendt ( , 2012 and Matunga (2013) suggest, and others within the planning profession advocate (Wensing 2012 and2014;Porter et al 2017), there is far more to be done and planners can but also must change the ways in which they engage meaningfully with Indigenous peoples. Planning has to be about decolonising its past practices, looking critically at assumptions and material effects and working collaboratively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to achieve their goals.…”

Section: Period/datesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing and revising Australia’s planning history and practice

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planning in Australia is always occurring on Indigenous lands. However, within the Australian planning canon, our institutions and practices have rarely acknowledged this reality. The lack of historical accuracy in accounts of urban planning histories, and the persistent inattention to the theory and practice of settler-colonialism, has blinded the profession to its complicity with colonial rule and effaced Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experiences. We present in this article a new way of thinking about the history of Australian planning that situates the discipline and practice of planning within Indigenous Australia. This reframing locates the history of planning inside the coexisting geographies and histories that encapsulate the subjugation, survival, resistance, and self-determination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. To do so, we analyse the literature and distil key periodizations as represented in the standard planning canon and then contrast them with the histories and geographies of Indigenous peoples to construct a very different periodization of Australian planning historyone that places Indigenous political, social and cultural concerns at the centre of analysis. This reworked periodization, which aligns planning histories with major events in Indigenous history and policy, not only provides a more accurate account of the history of planning in Australia but also provides a framework for thinking about the possibilities of more positive and transformative future relationships between planning and Indigenous peoples in Australia.

show abstract

“…As Indigenous design approaches develop, we define re-indigenisation as an Indigenous-led movement to reclaim everyday living environs by contesting, unsettling and disrupting the ongoing creation of urban centres that serve only to reflect settler power [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Historically, a legacy of British property legislation [ 20 ] has entailed defined boundaries, renaming places, and individual privatised land ownership which formed the basis of emplacing settlers and eradicating Indigenous societies [ 18 , 21 ]. Matunga [ 22 ] and Nejad [ 11 ] concur that this legacy of colonisation and urban development on Indigenous lands has entailed the elimination of Indigenous ‘memory’ (existence, heritage, experience) and ‘materiality’ (physical presence, structures, places).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local-Indigenous Autonomy and Community Streetscape Enhancement: Learnings from Māori and Te Ara Mua—Future Streets Project

Raerino

Macmillan

Field³

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In settler countries, attention is now extending to the wellbeing benefits of recognising and promoting the Indigenous cultural identity of neighbourhoods as a contributing factor to more equitable and healthier communities. Re-indigenisation efforts to (re)implement cultural factors into urban design can be challenging and ineffective without the leadership and collaboration of local-Indigenous peoples. Undertaken in Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Ara Mua — Future Street project, demonstrated that co-design has critical potential in the reclamation of Indigenous autonomy, increased local-Indigenous presence and revitalisation of cultural identity. Employing a Kaupapa Māori (Māori-centred) research approach, we focused on the workings and perspectives of mana whenua (local-Indigenous peoples) and community stakeholder engagement in Te Ara Mua. An Indigenous theoretical framework, Te Pae Mahutonga, was utilised in the data analysis to explore perspectives of Indigenous collective agency, empowerment, and wellbeing. Our research demonstrates that developing capacity amongst Indigenous communities is integral for effective engagement and that the realisation of autonomy in urban design projects has broader implications for Indigenous sovereignty, spatial justice and health equity. Significantly, we argue that future community enhancement strategies must include not only re-designing and re-imagining initiatives, but also re-indigenising.

show abstract

Cited by 45 publications

References 15 publications

On belonging and becoming in the settler-colonial city: Co-produced futurities, placemaking, and urban planning in the United States

On belonging and becoming in the settler-colonial city: Co-produced futurities, placemaking, and urban planning in the United States

Reframing and revising Australia’s planning history and practice

Local-Indigenous Autonomy and Community Streetscape Enhancement: Learnings from Māori and Te Ara Mua—Future Streets Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About