Printer Friendly

Land use planning on aboriginal lands--towards a new model for planning on reserve lands.


Land Use Planning within Canada's First Nation reserves has generally been unsuccessful. There are several reasons for this, mired in a historical-colonial legacy of imposing western planning models onto non-western cultures. Conflicting cultural views, underappreciated traditions and misunderstood cyclical customs have rendered land use plans that are highly inappropriate. This article briefly contextualizes the historical background to First Nation land and land management in Canada. It then describes what can only be seen as an enabling agreement between the federal government and First Nations who opt into the same agreement to plan, manage and indeed, to govern over their lands. Finally, it presents points of departure for a model of land use planning on First Nation lands.

Keywords: First Nation planning, Traditional land use planning


La planification at l'amenegement des territories autochtones du Canada n'a jamais ete un veritable success. Il y plusieurs causes, tous inextricablement relie a l'imposition de principes europeens et colonials dans un contexte autochtone et traditionel. Les concepts contradictories par rapport aux cultures indigenes, les traditions sous apprecier, et les coutumes mal interpreter sont a la base de plans d'amenegements inopportuns. Cet article examine l'historique de la plannification territorial des reserves autochtones du Canada, decrit un accord recement conclut entre un groupe de tributs et le gouvernement du Canada, et presente un nouveau module pour la plannification des reserves autochtones.

Mots cles: amenagement des terres autochtones, amenagement du territoire

Introduction (3)

"... planning is defined as the process of protecting and improving the living, production and recreation environments ... through the proper use and development of land. Human behaviour is very adaptable and human beings can sustain great environmental stress before breaking down, but the chief aim of good planning is to strain this adaptability as little as possible." (1)

"Despite enormous problems facing indigenous communities, they are perhaps best positioned to repatriate traditional planning approaches as well asadapt those mainstream practices that make them more culturally resilient." (2)

In a recent article on Indigenous Planning, Ted Jojola lucidly highlights a new 'emergence' of indigenous planning in the United States (Jojola 2008). In his article, Jojola makes it clear that land use planning on Aboriginal lands has in the past been less than successful, with little to do with Aboriginal realities and more to do with western planning concepts. In general, planning on Aboriginal lands has historically been carried out by outside practitioners without much appreciation or consideration for traditional knowledge and cultural identity (Jojola 2000). Within the Aboriginal reserves of Canada, the conditions are similar, and in addition to being sporadic, piecemeal, and subject to fluctuating funding, land planning processes on First Nation reserves are often usurped by outside practitioners linked to larger architectural or engineering firms that seem to be focused on the potential building or infrastructural work that might arise out of the final plan. Further, activities linked to planning are generally assigned to individuals from outside the communities. (4) Many First Nations have "Physical Development Plans," 'Comprehensive Community Development Plans' and other federally advocated (and funded) plan types for their reserve lands, yet these tend to fall within formulaic and top-down processes, all-the-while failing to consider other possible planning approaches. A general lack of adequate appreciation for long term world-views, for example, results from these plans and is one of the main reasons for the unsuccessful outcomes, Joloja discusses a more recent, 'positive' trend towards more multidisciplinary planning approaches in the United States (Jojola 2008). And in Canada, this seems true in terms architectural and site-specific planning on First Nation reserves (Millette 2011). As for land use and community planning, however, there are very different historical, political and cultural realities within the First Nation reserve contexts in Canada. Analyzing the historical antecedents related to First Nation lands all-the-while considering the unique cultural and traditional ways is key to any successful land use planning activity on the same lands. This paper briefly outlines the historical landscape of land use planning on First Nation reserves in Canada, then describes a relevant agreement between a group of First Nations and the federal government--an agreement that enables First Nation land planning and management on reserve lands, and then it presents the basis for a model of First Nation land use planning that is trans-disciplinary and culturally inclusive. The model provides for planning tenets such as Traditional Use, Cultural Knowledge and broader, more inclusive strategies such as those associated with 'regenerative design' to achieve what might be a more culturally balanced reserve planning outcome.

Historical Context

While the Europeans arrived in North America prior to the eighteenth century, it was not until the mid nineteenth century that they began to systematically impose land-related 'management' upon the lands inhabited by Aboriginal people. Prior to European arrival, land ownership was not documented, recorded, or registered in the ways that were eventually brought to America. The Europeans had been taking inventory of resources, at least since Cartier's voyages to the New World (Greenblatt 1991). And while systems of land ownership and use were in place, these were not recognized by the Europeans and land was simply seen as available for the taking. In the process, the newcomers failed to notice, or acknowledge, that Aboriginal peoples accessed large geographical areas in their day to day lives. They gathered resources, managed large tracts of lands, and governed over the same lands, all-the-while planning for future uses. They used sophisticated, communal land use practices, based on natural cycles, family lineages, and traditional ways that extended from a distant past and projected towards a distant future. The Tsawwassen people, for example, planned their settlements (and settlement occupancy) over generations according to fish movements along the southern coast of British Columbia and the Fraser River shores, with specific family lineages (and linkages) considered in resource harvesting at specific sites; 'planned' resource extraction and resource use along determined geographical and family nodes were the norm. (5)

Gradually, in the mid nineteenth century (earlier in Quebec), the European administrators, military officers and religious envoys together began to group Aboriginal peoples into reserve villages, especially focusing on the southern areas of Canada. (6) This was done in order to provide lands for Europeans and to 'manage' First Nation communities, appropriate their lands and resources, and to govern over the same lands and resources. By the early 1800s, areas of Quebec and much of eastern Canada, and by the late 1850s in the west, native control and management of vast tracts of traditionally held lands was virtually lost through colonial rule (Harris 1992). Geographically, the reserves were organized within the areas closer to what is now southern Canada, east to west, and extending beyond the historical treaties. (7) The Indian Act was first enacted in 1876, effectively making it legal for the colonial government to take possession of what had been Aboriginal lands and resources. (8) By 1881, with the first Canadian census taking place, most of what had been lands owned and governed by First Nations had been taken over by the colonial administrators. (9) Reserves were gradually surveyed out of portions of the Aboriginal landscape, not necessarily to protect the lands of First Nations, but instead to ensure that a minimal and controlled amount of land was occupied by the same population. Pre-emption and claiming of lands, through a variety of mechanisms, took place at a rate at times faster than the colonial surveyors could actually survey the boundaries around Aboriginal settlements. This was the beginning of what became 'Indian Act reserve land management'.

Relatively quickly then, as the Indian Act came into force, reserve lands were increasingly subjected to the land management plans of Indian Agents, officials of the Crown, and eventually, the federal government Department of Indian Affairs (Harris 2003). The Indian Act reserve system imposed European notions of land ownership that were completely different: land surveying and parcelling, lot marking, instrument registration, and finally, titles and deeds. However, First Nation people often continued to access and traditionally plan, manage and govern lands according to tradition. Permissions were still habitually sought from neighbouring First Nations to access lands and resources, all-the-while avoiding European settlements. Natural cycles continued to be observed in terms of resource use timing. And specific areas were allotted for specific uses. In effect, traditional land use planning continued for some time, albeit invisible to the colonial apparatus. Later, and over several decades, European 'ownership' of lands within traditional territories and Indian Act reserve land management together virtually eliminated traditional planning from the collective memory (Millette 2002).

Traditional land use planning in Aboriginal territories has never 'fit' within the Indian Act administration system. One of the results of the Indian Act has been a conflicting situation whereby imposed reserve boundaries do not coincide with traditional territorial boundaries. Another result is that because surveyed lands do not provide for territories which were once shared by neighbouring First Nations, shared territories remain for the most part misunderstood; it is of no surprise that within the British Columbia Treaty Process, for example, 'shared' territories are referred to as 'overlapping' territories, implying (wrongly) a conflicting set of relationships between neighbouring First Nation communities. Over time a considerable set of regulations, policies and procedures were established out of Indian Act administration, resulting in a cumbersome bureaucracy that has impeded good land management and sound planning practices. The result, in terms of land planning on First Nation reserves, has been a general lack of consideration for traditionally held lands and traditional methods of planning, a persisting focus on external reserve boundaries, and a comparatively short (western) planning horizon compared to a longer (traditional) planning horizon.

New Conditions

The taking of First Nation lands during the 1800s ultimately resulted in today's First Nation reserves. With the surveying of the reserves by colonial administrators and the enactment of the Indian Act came a loss in traditional lands management and governance strategies. The Indian Act and the subsequent set of regulations had simply not been designed to support self-sufficiency and autonomy in terms of land use planning, land use, and land management in general. This was never accepted by First Nations and it should be of no surprise that within present-day treaties and agreements, we find corresponding provisions for land planning and a variety of land management provisions. (10) Other arrangements with federal, provincial and territorial governments have been tested or discussed during the past several years. (11) It is with one very successful example that this paper now turns its attention to: The effort by a group of First Nation Chiefs, who, in the 1980s, began to consider a new concept of managing reserve lands and resources, aiming to reinstate jurisdictions and self-governance authorities. The result was the negotiation of the 'Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management' (the Framework Agreement) and while it applies to reserve lands only, it is well worth the effort to consider its implications. (12)

The Framework Agreement is an innovative, key agreement offering the opportunity for First Nation jurisdiction and control (legal authority) over reserve lands and resources to First Nations who become signatories to it. (13) It was signed by thirteen First Nations and Canada on February 12, 1996. (14) It was ratified and brought into effect by Canada in the First Nations Land Management Act, assented to June 17, 1999. (15) Many more First Nations have opted into the agreement since 1996. Signatory First Nations take the necessary steps to ratify the Framework Agreement through the enacting of 'Land Codes' and by proceeding to reassume control over their lands and resources. (16) A Land Code is drafted by a committee representing the community and becomes the basic land law of the First Nations Key is that once ratified by a community, the same Land Code replaces all of the land management provisions of the Indian Act for that community. The Land Code is the primary issue that we are concerned with here: As the First Nation's principle land law, the Land Code becomes the document that enables a First Nation to pass further land laws, including land use related laws and any associated documents. The Land Code includes, among other provisions: The identification of the lands to be managed by the First Nation, the general rules and procedures for the use and occupation of the First Nation lands, the rules for financial accountability for revenues from the lands, the procedures for making and publishing First Nation land laws, the community processes to develop rules and procedures applicable to land on the breakdown of a marriage, the provisions for a land-related dispute resolution process, the procedures to grant interests in land for community purposes, the provision for the delegation of land management responsibilities, and, finally, the procedure for amending the same Land Code. This is significant: No-where, outside of a few modern treaties and self-governing agreements do we find more First Nation autonomy for the governance over reserve lands. (18)

With approximately twenty-five percent of the Indian Act no longer applicable, the Framework Agreement provides for land governance authorities that are not available to First Nations under the Indian Act. (19) First Nations operating under the Framework Agreement can define land use planning processes that can be managed internally and completely controlled by the same community. In other words, a First Nation who is a signatory to the agreement and has ratified its Land Code now has options in terms of planning approaches. This can include any planning process that the First Nation might chose, including an approach that could consider traditional planning concepts blended with western planning principles that together might result in a land use plan that corresponds to First Nation-specific planning ideals.

Towards a New Approach: A Blended Planning Model for First Nation Reserve Lands

Recently, suggestions for enhancing general planning techniques have included more collaborative approaches and an increased consideration for identifying and establishing best-practices. (20) This has followed the very relevant highlighting of planning in more regional contexts, and looking at the planning links and advantages between local governments and First Nation communities. (21) Closer perhaps to more relevant planning on Aboriginal lands are the planning theories and models developed along participant learning, landscape perception and Aboriginal perspectives. (22) And directly related to the notion of community participation are the theories connected to "participatory design, particularly as developed within the fields of architectural design and social design. (23) Each of these has helped move planners towards planning that could to some extent provide for more successful reserve community planning exercises by enabling synergies between a variety of planning ideals.

One potential way to undertake planning on reserve lands is to consider a blended model, using planning traits from combinations of western (comprehensive and strategic planning) and traditional (world-view) models. In the west, it has become common practice to consider land planning as an activity that organizes a set of land uses, inventories what advantages the same land might have, and arranges them in theoretical space (on a map, for example). A set of action steps accompanies the map, and if followed, the set of steps will make the land use plan a reality. Key is that land use planning within this approach makes assumptions on "present development" and not necessarily on combined notions of past, present and future. In the western approach to planning on Aboriginal lands, when land is seen as having reached its maximal worth, it falls into disuse until a new use is found. Traditional planning, on the other hand, involves values that are closer to the ground. The 'real' ground replaces the theoretical space of the western planning approach in the sense that the plan is not designated within a theoretical framework; it is physically manifested on the land. The outcome in traditional planning is not primarily guided by 'present development"; it is guided by traditional activity, traditional decision making processes, and broader world-views that contain values and tenets that are linked to balanced relationships between humans and their natural surroundings. Ancestral sites, resource areas, natural cycles, and community social and political aspects all contribute to traditional planning. With traditional planning, the management of lands and resources encompasses much longer time horizons and therefore can incorporate long standing traditional knowledge and long-term cultural, heritage and environmental strategies.

Both western and traditional planning approaches have useful aspects. The theoretical and technical aspects of the western approach renders a form of ground-truth that helps when, for example, attempting to protect specific species of plants or animals (for harvesting for either western or traditional purposes), or when determining best uses for economic development. The more inclusive aspects of the traditional approach are useful when, for instance, Elders with generations of knowledge, can point to specific sites of cultural use that may need protection, or when longer time horizons are used to better determine present-day uses. Recently, signs of blended approaches have emerged. The plans associated with 'Terrestrial and Predictive Ecosystem Mapping', for instance, have attempted to bring together some aspects of both approaches. Similarly, the inclusion of Aboriginal Traditional

Knowledge (ATK) within plans included in environmental assessments has benefited subsequent environmental processes. It seems clear that an integrated and trans-disciplinary approach is suitable and indeed long overdue. Indeed, the call for linkages between planning elements dates several decades (Galloway and Mahayni 1977). It is possible to merge traditional and western planning approaches--and the disciplines and tools involved within their planning processes, on a variety of levels, including, among others, philosophical, ethical, environmental and technical.

The following diagram (figure 1) provides examples of the way different tenets and disciplines, both traditional and western, can work together at various levels to create a blended approach.

The model does not prescribe 'how' the traditional and western elements blend; this part of the process is internal to the community and is established as the process evolves within that same community. At a philosophical level, precisely how the First Nation's world-view is auto-defined will inform the structure of the comprehensive (or other) plan.

Similarly, at an ethical level, a Traditional Use Study might reflect the First Nation's ethical base; exactly how the same ethical base interfaces with the community's legal obligations and legal needs is something that the community decides. The same applies at the environmental level: The First Nation's stewardship principles may very well replace western sustainability principles. And at the technical level, Elder knowledge might blend with a Geographic Information System (GIS); precisely how the GIS might be utilized to inventory, classify and analyze lands and resources would be up to the community. Regardless of the level--philosophical, ethical, environmental or technical, the First Nation obtains whatever expert advice it might require, based on its needs and priorities, at each stage of the planning process. The advice might be from Elder advisors or western scientists and engineers. For example, during the development of a preliminary Land Use Plan, the planner interviewed Elders on the location of culturally significant plants; the Elders then requested that the work of an Archaeologist be utilized to supplement their information. This is significant: Even with information which is culturally and traditionally bounded, it is possible that members of the community augment their knowledge with western knowledge. (24)

At a praxis level, figure 2 outlines what might be a land use plan process using the blended planning model for a First Nation community. At first glance, and leaving aside the specific process activities, the level of community involvement seems challenging. To address this reality, it is necessary to go back to the above discussion on the Framework Agreement and the Land Codes that are developed within that process. The Land Codes are developed by committees established within the communities. That is to say that within each community that develops a Land Code under the Framework Agreement, a representative committee is generally formed. This committee is normally mandated by the community, through its Chief and Council, to make recommendations or decisions related to land matters, depending on the individual First Nation. Ideally, although not always, the same committee can operate as a steering committee in the development of a land use plan.

The Land Code drafting committee, or a similar committee, can continue to advise the land department on land matters, including the development of a land use plan. This means that for the blended planning model, such a committee can act on the one hand as a decision and advisory body representing the community, while on the other hand as a liaison between the planner and the community, when specialized traditional advice or expertise is required that the committee might not possess within its ranks. Therefore, at each stage of the process, the community's committee is provided full opportunity for input. The planning practitioner builds this into the process and the necessary time is allotted from the beginning.


This paper briefly outlines the historical landscape of land planning on First Nation reserve lands in Canada and makes the point that western style land use planning within First Nation reserves has seldom been successful. A general lack of consideration for traditional planning values and strategies has led to poor outcomes. Until relatively recently, First Nations on reserves have not had the opportunity to regain control of their lands, land planning and land management choices. This paper outlines a relevant agreement between a group of First Nations and the federal government-an agreement that enables direct land management (including land use planning) by the signatory First Nations. If a successful land use plan is to derive from the vision, values and commitments of a community, then there is no reason to expect anything different in First Nation contexts, especially when the same First Nation has 'land' as an underlying cultural and traditional tenet. The paper concludes by presenting a blended planning model that is at once trans-disciplinary and culturally inclusive. The model takes into account Traditional Use, Cultural Knowledge, and a broader, more inclusive strategy to achieve what might be a more culturally balanced planning outcome that can contain, due to its traditional values, very 'green', 'sustainable' and regenerative solutions to land challenges.


Aubrey, Donald. 1999. Principles for Successful Community Planning in Northern Communities. In Plan Canada. 39(3): 12--5.

Berkes, Fikret. 2009. Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 39: 151-156.

Galloway, Thomas D. and Riad G. Mahayni. 1977. Planning Theory in Retrospect: The Process of Paradigm Change. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 43: (1) 62-70.

Greenblatt, Stephen. 1991. Marvelous Possessions--The Wonder of the New World. Chicago: The Univ. of Chicago Press.

Harris, Cole. 2003. Making Native Space--Colonialism, Resistance and Reserves in British Columbia. Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia Press.

Harris, Cole. 1992. The Resettlement of British Columbia. Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia Press.

Hough, Michael. 2002. Principles for Regional Design. In Theory in Landscape Architecture, ed. Simon Swaffield 2002, 209-213. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jojola, T. 2008. Indigenous Planning--An Emerging Context. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 17(1) Supplement: 37-47.

Jojola, T. 2000. The End of tradition? Paper presented at the 7th IASTE Conference, Trani, Italy, Oct. 12-15, 2000.

Leung, Hok-Lin. 2007. Land Use Planning Made Plain. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.

Luck, Rachael. 2003. Dialogue in Participatory Design. In Design Studies 24(6): 523--35.

Millette, Daniel, M. 1998. A Traditional Use Study of the Tsawwassen First Nation. Victoria: Tsawwassen First Nation and British Columbia Ministry of Forests.

Millette, Daniel, M. 2002. Re-building Memories: On the Reconstruction of a 'Traditional' Longhouse at Tsawwassen. Journal of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada. 27:4: 45-50.

Millette, Daniel, M. 2008. Landscape and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge--The Pitt River / Pitt Lake Area Case Study. Vancouver: British Columbia Hydro and Tsawwassen First Nation.

Millette, Daniel, M. 2011. Memory, the Architecture of First Nations, and the Problem with History. In Architecture and the Construction of the Canadian Fabric. ed. Rhodri Windsor Liscombe 2011, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press: 467--79.

Tota, Kasia. 2003. The Old / New Neighbourhood: Breaking Ground in Collaborative Land Use Planning between First Nations and Local Governments. In Plan Canada 43(4): 31--3.

Daniel M. Millette

School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture

University of British Columbia


(1) Hok-Lin Leung. Land Use Planning Made Plain. 2007. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1.

(2) T. Jojola 2008. Indigenous Planning--An Emerging Context. In Canadian Journal of Urban Research 17(1) 45.

(3) This article has benefitted from valuable suggestions provided via the journal's anonymous peer review process.

(4) For a still relevant discussion of the challenges of planning in First Nation communities in Northern Canada, see Donald Aubrey 1999. Principles for Successful Community Planning in Northern Communities. In Plan Canada. 39(3): 12--5 1999.

(5) See Daniel M. Millette. A Traditional Use Study of the Tsawwassen First Nation. 1998. Victoria: Tsawwassen First Nation and British Columbia Ministry of Forests.

(6) This article focuses on 'reserve' lands and as such, does not discuss the vast lands outside the reserve system, yet occupied and inhabited by many of Canada's First Nation people. Northern areas, for example, have First Nation communities that are not reserves per se; there are different associations, some governmental, others outside of government, that aim at providing land planning advising and expertise to some of these communities.

(7) Until the 1850's, the notion of 'reserves' did not form part of treaty talks. Eventually they were included and recorded, as the pressure for lands increased with the inflow of European populations. The numbered treaties, as well as the Robinson treaties, for example, had provisions for reserve to be set aside. However, these lands were in quite inaccessible areas, benefitting the newcomers to the detriment of the aboriginal communities.

(8) For the full text of the Indian Act, see eng/I-5/index.html

(9) While "Indian Reserves" had been established through the Royal Proclamation in 1763, these were not the same type of reserves that were surveyed by the colonial establishment in the 1800s.

(10) See for example the "Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement" Chapter 4--Lands; Chapter 5--Land Title ; and Chapter 6--Land Management, and the "Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement Part X--Westbank Lands and Lands Management, Title and Interests".

(11) See for example, the Northwest Territories Association of Communities (NWTAC), an association of at least twenty-eight communities, some of which are First Nations. The NWTAC has an integrated community planning toolkit which is available to all of its communities.

(12) For the full text of the "Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management," see Text-of-the-Framework-Agreement-on-First- Nation-Land-Management.pdf

(13) There are several (land) aspects that underlie the Framework Agreement, including: The removal of reserve lands from the Indian Act and establishing community control over First Nation land management and governance, increased accountability to members of the First Nation, more efficient management of First Nation lands, the transfer by Canada of previous land revenues to the First Nation, the ability of the First Nation to protect the environment, the ability of the First nation to address rules related to land during marriage breakdowns, the recognition of significant law-making powers respecting First Nation lands, the removal of the need to obtain Ministerial approval for First Nation land related laws, the recognition in Canadian courts of First Nation laws, the ability to create local dispute resolution processes, the establishment of a legal registry system, and, the establishment of a First nation run Lands Advisory Board to provide technical assistance.

(14) A further First Nation, St. Mary's First Nation, was added as in December, 1997, and several others have been added over the years. Recently, in 2012, as a result of the positive results, 18 First Nations were added, bringing the total number of signatories up to 76, or 12% of Canada's First Nations. Sixty-five (65) further First Nations are on a waiting list to become signatories.

(15) For the full text of the First Nations Lands Management Act, see

(16) The Framework Agreement applies to existing reserve lands including natural resources (except for oil and gas, migratory birds, fish and atomic energy).

(17) Each First Nation signals its intent to enter into the Framework Agreement by signing and submitting a "Band Council Resolution" and embarking on a process that involves the preparation of a Land Code, the concluding of an Individual Agreement, and several other steps such as confirming reserve land boundaries and developing a Community Ratification Process. (The Individual Agreement is a government to government agreement, negotiated between each community and the Minister).

(18) Specifically, and among other benefits, the primary benefits of the Framework Agreement to First Nations includes the fact that this is the first real recognition of a First Nation's right to manage its reserve lands and resources, it provides for the removal of reserve lands from the Indian Act, there is community control over First Nation land management and development, there is more efficient management of First Nation lands, there is the recognition of First Nation legal capacity to acquire and hold property, to borrow, to contract, to expend and invest money, to be a party to legal proceedings, to exercise its powers and to perform its duties, there is protection against the arbitrary expropriation of First Nation land, there is the ability of First Nations to protect the environment, there is the recognition of significant law-making powers respecting First Nation land, there is the removal of the need to obtain Ministerial approval for First Nation laws, there is the recognition in Canadian courts of First Nation laws, there is the ability to create a local dispute resolution processes, there is the establishment of a legal registry system, and there is the establishment of a First Nation run Lands Board to provide technical assistance to First Nations.

(19) Indian Act sections that no longer apply when a Land Code is in effect include Sections 18 to 20 ; Sections 22 to 28; Sections 30 to 35; Sections 37 to 41; Sections 49 to 50(4); Sections 53 to 60; Section 66; Section 69; Section 71; Section 93; Regulations made under section 57 (to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Framework Agreement or the Land Code or the laws of the First Nation); Regulations made under sections 42 (to the extent that they are inconsistent with the

Framework Agreement or the Land Code or the laws of the First Nation); and Regulations made under section 73 (to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Framework Agreement or the Land Code or the laws of the First Nation).

(20) See for example Ecotrust Canada. 2009. "BC First Nations Land Use Planning--Effective Practices". (Accessible at http://www. pdf). Further, and while also not focused specifically on reserve communities, the work on devising general planning principles with aboriginal communities of Donald Aubrey is noteworthy. See Donald Aubrey. 1999. Principles for Successful Community Planning in Northern Communities. In Plan Canada. 39(3): 12--5.

(21) Tota, Kasia. 2003. "The old / New Neighbourhood: Breaking Ground in Collaborative Land Use Planning between First Nations and Local Governments." In Plan Canada 43(4): 31--3.

(22) See for example, the work of Fikret Berkes, within which he explores the close links between environmental change (human induced and otherwise) and indigenous knowledge.

(23) See for example, Rachael Luck. 2003. "Dialogue in Participatory Design". In Design Studies 24(6): 523--35.

(24) See Daniel M. Millette. 2008. Landscape and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge--The Pitt River / Pitt Lake Area Case Study. Vancouver: British Columbia Hydro and Tsawwassen First Nation.
COPYRIGHT 2011 Institute of Urban Studies
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2021 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Millette, Daniel M.
Publication:Canadian Journal of Urban Research
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1CANA
Date:Dec 22, 2011
Previous Article:Framing homelessness for the Canadian public: the news media and homelessness.
Next Article:'Softening' Canada's gateway to the Asia Pacific? Community perspectives on Vancouver's international visage.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |