Planning education and indigenous knowledge systems in Australia: where are we?

In 2008 Sarah Oberklaid reviewed the state of Indigenous knowledge systems in the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA)-accredited University planning programs and found a fragmented unfocused suite of agendas and attempts at addressing this increasingly important moral, cultural and land use management issue. While Oberklaid statistically validated what several authors have observed, and continue to observe, there appears to have been little action by programs, and specifically the PIA (Planning Institute of Australia), to address this issue and reposition their education accreditation policies; with the latter increasingly reluctant to engage with their professional responsibilities. This paper appraises this situation and foreshadows continuing research that may better inform and support a change of perspective by the PIA andthese programs.

Asian Cities: Cultural heritage and the interplay between nation building and internationalism

It is over a decade since the volume The Disappearing Asian City (Logan 2002) was published. An edited volume bringing together a number of experts on the region, the book identified the threats facing buildings, archaeological sites and the historic character of cities, as well as the myriad of challenges of raising civic and regulatory awareness about the value of cultural heritage in times of rapid transformation. It was a set of concerns and arguments that remain as pertinent as ever. Those who have lived and worked in different parts of Asia over the past decade on cultural heritage issues, frequently use the terms 'extraordinary' or 'bewildering' to describe the scale and speed of transformation that has taken place. Indeed, for those concerned about maintaining continuities between past and present - whether they be social, spiritual or material - the development of cities, the wholesale movements of communities in and out of urban landscapes, together with the dramatic increase in industries like tourism, has often been disorienting, and in some cases deeply confronting: both professionally and emotionally. And yet, to focus on loss and destruction would miss a whole set of other fascinating, emergent and important trends. As numerous publications in the intervening period have shown, cultural heritage has become a topic of intense interest and debate in the majority of Asian societies, for a host of reasons (Askew 2010; Broudehoux 2004; Pai 2013).

The challenges of addressing an Aboriginal responsibility for Country in land-use and national park planning: a South East Queensland case study

This paper presents research insights on the challenges that Australian Aboriginal communities living within the South East Queensland (SEQ) metropolitan region face in seeking to exercise their contemporary responsibilities to care for Country in land-use and national park planning. A case study design was adopted to analyse the incorporation of two Aboriginal communities connections to Country in state-based planning systems, and to explore the responsibilities Aboriginal communities ethically seek to adhere to in maintaining Country from their own understandings.
Country, from an Aboriginal understanding, involves a deep ecological, cultural, economic and social comprehension of ‘law’ guided by a responsibility for Country. Otherwise known as customary law and custom, Country is that which both Aboriginals and their communities are intrinsically connected to. Country is the moral value that guides Aboriginal obligation to care and this obligation could well conflict
with mainstream contemporary Western management policy and legislation.
This research draws on insights from Quandamooka Country (North Stradbroke Island) and Jagera Country (Brisbane City and Ipswich), located within the Brisbane metropolitan region in South East Queensland of Australia. During this research, it was concluded that, in both Quandamooka Country and Jagera Country, the respective Owners are operating within a sphere of increasingly complex challenges that impact upon their ability to conserve and have recognized the values of their obligations to Country care in planning. Common themes occurring on Country identified in this research included issues relating to a neglect of care to maintain Country by planners and government officials, and interactions that prevent Traditional Owners from having their obligation of caring for Country on their terms expressed through land-use planning legislation. Political agendas of the Queensland State that influences the interactions of planners and government with Traditional Owners were also concluded to be detrimental, and to damaging trust, ongoing discussions and understandings. These insights indicate that Aboriginal communities are facing an increasing conflicting range of perceptions and comprehensions that are hindering the expression and execution of their moral responsibility embodied in their deep ecological law to care for Country in Western planning legislative obligations. It illustrates that the responsibilities given to practicing planners and government officials to care for Country under Western law are commonly not adhered to It concludes with the suggestion that for some progress to recognize an Aboriginal responsibility to Country in planning, state-Traditional Owner relations and collaboration is now needed to help transcend the legislative challenges underpinning Western planning law.

The value of ethnoecological knowledge of the Minahasans: repositioning traditional biocultural knowledge in Indonesian environmental planning

Indonesian strategic and statutory environmental regimes have drawn directly from conventional Western models of environmental planning and natural resource management. These models are often at odds with, do not connect with, nor appreciate generational traditional biocultural knowledge and information from regionally-specific Indigenous communities in Indonesia. This knowledge, and the voice of the custodians of this knowledge, has been overlooked and circumvented in the name of broadscale nationalistic co-ordinated strategic planning. The problem is that nationalist planning, in a multicultural archipelago full of a diverse set of communities often with their own languages, dialects, cultural relationships to landscape, and mixed connectivity to different cohorts of colonial (European and Asian) and religious affiliations means that a deep understanding of environmental information at local and regional level is negated and denied legitimacy. This paper offers a platform to discuss this issue, the difficulty of nationalistic planning and its failings at the Minahasan regional level in Indonesia, and the wealth of cultural and environmental answers the Minahasan culture can bring to the table to better management its landscape sustainably and culturally. This paper’s purpose is to question conventional and generic environmental planning systems in Indonesia and charts an alternate culturally-attuned agenda that can offer to inform and better manage landscapes sustainably and culturally. The tipping points are deep questions about how to regionally manage landscapes sustainably and culturally in deference to a nationalistic agenda before the latter dooms the former producing a 'one-fits all' or generic Indonesian biogeographical landscape devoid of cultural nuances.

Planning for country: empowering built environment students with Indigenous protocols and knowledge

Increasingly, Built Environment (BE) professionals, including planner, architect and landscape architect practitioners, are becoming involved in the planning and design of projects for, and in direct consultation with Indigenous communities and their proponents. These projects range from inserting Indigenous cultural landscape analysis into planning schemes, including Indigenous protocols and aspirations in policy statements; designing cultural centres, information centres and housing; drafting cultural tourism strategies and devising cross-cultural land management plans. This entails working with Indigenous communities or their nominated representatives as stakeholders in community engagement, consultation, and planning processes. Critically, BE professionals must be able to plan and design with regard to Indigenous community’s cultural protocols, issues and values. Yet many (domestic and or international) students graduate with little or no comprehension of Indigenous knowledge systems or the protocols for engagement with the communities in which they are required to work, whether they be Australian or international Indigenous communities. Contextually, both PIA and the planning academe have struggled with coming to terms with this realm over the last 10 years. This paper will report on a recently completed Australian Government Office of Learning & Teaching (OLT) funded research project that has sought to improve opportunities to improve the knowledge and skills of tertiary students in the BE professions through the enhancement of their competency, appreciation and respect for Indigenous protocols and processes that also implicates the professional accreditation systems that these courses are accountable. It has proposed strategies and processes to expose students in the BE professions to Australian Indigenous knowledge and cultural systems and the protocols for engaging with Indigenous Australians about their rights, interests, needs and aspirations. Included in these findings is the provision of a tool that enables and offers guidance to BE tertiary students and academics how to enhance comprehension, exposure to, and knowledge and cultural systems of, Indigenous Australians. While the scope of this report is cross-BE, this paper will focus upon the planning practice, policy and academe realms.

Educating for designing in and planning for country: Empowering built environment students with Indigenous protocols and knowledge

Increasingly, built environment professionals in Australia, including architect, landscape architect and planner practitioners, are becoming involved in planning and design of projects for, and in direct consultation with Indigenous communities and their proponents. Critically, built environment professionals must be able to plan and design, and demonstrate respect for Indigenous protocols, cultural issues and their community values. Yet many students graduate with little or no comprehension of Indigenous knowledge systems or the protocols for engagement with Australian or international Indigenous communities in which they are required to work. This paper reports on a recently completed Office of Learning & Teaching funded project that was designed to improve the knowledge and skills of tertiary students in the built environment professions including proposing strategies and processes to expose students in the built environment professions to Australian Indigenous knowledge systems. This is a positive beginning in a long-term decolonising project.