@article {26136, title = {On belonging and becoming in the settler-colonial city: Co-produced futurities, placemaking, and urban planning in the United States}, journal = {Journal of Race, Ethnicity and the City}, year = {2020}, abstract = {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{\textquoteright} 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.}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26884674.2020.1793703}, author = {Barry, Janice and Agyeman, Julian} } @article {26137, title = {Decolonizing the Boundaries between the \‘Planner\’ and the \‘Planned\’: Implications of Indigenous Property Development}, journal = {Planning Theory \& Practice}, volume = {21}, year = {2020}, pages = {410-425}, abstract = {This paper examines Indigenous property development, drawing on research into the development of treaty settlement lands in Manitoba, Canada, and Canterbury, New Zealand. It highlights two contradicting ways of understanding this work: Indigenous peoples as self-determining, with authority to develop their own urban planning approaches, and Indigenous peoples as conventional property developers, subject to the same rules as any other private interest. This contradiction is used to expose a need for alternative, decolonial ways of understanding relationships between the {\textquoteleft}planner{\textquoteright} and the {\textquoteleft}planned{\textquoteright}, grounded in the recognition of overlapping governance roles and responsibilities which Indigenous peoples are now (re)claiming in the urban environment.}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14649357.2020.1775874}, author = {Barry, Janice and Thompson-Fawcett, Michelle} } @article {barry2019unsettling, title = {Unsettling Notions of Planning Competence: Lessons from Studio-Based Learning with Indigenous Peoples}, journal = {Journal of Planning Education and Research}, year = {2019}, publisher = {SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}, abstract = {Drawing on the instructor and student experiences of a service-based learning course with Indigenous peoples, this paper considers how studios develop the skills and competencies outlined by accrediting bodies. Yet, this approach to teaching and learning can also unsettle students{\textquoteright} sense of professional competence and faith in the usefulness of conventional planning methods. In this case, unsettlement was a valuable and productive outcome that supported the development of a more critically reflective approach to working with Indigenous peoples and a newfound appreciation of the need to engage in disquieting conversations about the colonial underpinnings of the planning profession.}, url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456X19844571}, author = {Barry, Janice and Allan, Evan and Chandran, Deepa and Cook, James and Curtis, Brittany and Kostyniuk, Ashley and Mikulec, Philip and Searle, Meleana and Yau, Derek} } @article {thompsonenhancing, title = {Enhancing cultural aspirations in urban design: the gradual transformation by Indigenous innovation}, journal = {Urban Design International}, year = {2018}, month = {2018}, pages = {1{\textendash}9}, publisher = {Springer}, abstract = {In the paper, we address the need to make visible the presence of Indigenous groups in the built environment that has developed on their traditional territories. We examine two recent approaches that have been used in Aotearoa New Zealand to manifest Indigenous histories and values in the city of Otautahi|Christchurch. The first involves the Indigenous group acting as urban developer. The second exemplifies Indigenous integration into local urban design decision-making processes. The result of both approaches is a significant urban transformation whereby Indigenous cultural aspirations are given voice in the city.}, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41289-018-0075-y}, author = {Thompson-Fawcett, Michelle and Kitson, Alex and Barry, Janice} } @article {barry2018unsettling, title = {Unsettling planning theory}, journal = {Planning Theory}, volume = {17}, number = {3}, year = {2018}, pages = {418{\textendash}438}, publisher = {SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England}, abstract = {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 {\textquoteleft}unsettling{\textquoteright} 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.}, url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1473095218763842}, author = {Barry, Janice and Horst, Megan and Inch, Andy and Legacy, Crystal and Rishi, Susmita and Rivero, Juan J and Taufen, Anne and Zanotto, Juliana M and Zitcer, Andrew} } @inbook {barry2016government, title = {Government-to-Government Planning and the Recognition of Indigenous Rights and Title in the Central Coast Land and Resource Management Plan}, booktitle = {Planning Canada: A Case Study Approach}, year = {2016}, pages = {168{\textendash}175}, publisher = {Oxford University Press Canada}, organization = {Oxford University Press Canada}, url = {http://www.oupcanada.com/catalog/9780199008070.html}, author = {Barry, Janice} } @inbook {barry2016not, title = {Not stakeholders in these parts: Indigenous peoples and urban planning}, booktitle = {The Participatory City}, year = {2016}, pages = {23{\textendash}29}, publisher = {Jovis}, organization = {Jovis}, author = {Barry, Janice} } @book {18281, title = {Planning for Coexistence? Recognizing Indigenous rights through land-use planning in Canada and Australia}, year = {2016}, pages = {222}, publisher = {Routledge}, organization = {Routledge}, abstract = {Planning is becoming one of the key battlegrounds for Indigenous people to negotiate meaningful articulation of their sovereign territorial and political rights, reigniting the essential tension that lies at the heart of Indigenous-settler relations. But what actually happens in the planning contact zone - when Indigenous demands for recognition of coexisting political authority over territory intersect with environmental and urban land-use planning systems in settler-colonial states? This book answers that question through a critical examination of planning contact zones in two settler-colonial states: Victoria, Australia and British Columbia, Canada. Comparing the experiences of four Indigenous communities who are challenging and renegotiating land-use planning in these places, the book breaks new ground in our understanding of contemporary Indigenous land justice politics. It is the first study to grapple with what it means for planning to engage with Indigenous peoples in major cities, and the first of its kind to compare the underlying conditions that produce very different outcomes in urban and non-urban planning contexts. In doing so, the book exposes the costs and limits of the liberal mode of recognition as it comes to be articulated through planning, challenging the received wisdom that participation and consultation can solve conflicts of sovereignty. This book lays the theoretical, methodological and practical groundwork for imagining what planning for coexistence might look like: a relational, decolonizing planning praxis where self-determining Indigenous peoples invite settler-colonial states to their planning table on their terms.}, url = {https://www.routledge.com/Planning-for-Coexistence-Recognizing-Indigenous-rights-through-land-use/Porter-Barry/p/book/9781409470779}, author = {Porter, Libby and Barry, Janice} } @article {porter2015bounded, title = {Bounded recognition: urban planning and the textual mediation of Indigenous rights in Canada and Australia}, journal = {Critical Policy Studies}, volume = {9}, number = {1}, year = {2015}, pages = {22{\textendash}40}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, author = {Porter, Libby and Barry, Janice} } @article {barry2015british, title = {From British City Centre to British Columbia{\textquoteright}s Central Coast: The Transferability of the Institutional Capacity Development Framework}, journal = {Connections: Exploring Contemporary Planning Theory and Practice with Patsy Healey}, year = {2015}, pages = {313}, publisher = {Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.}, author = {Barry, Janice} } @article {porter2015partnerships, title = {Partnerships of learning for planning education Who is learning what from whom? The beautiful messiness of learning partnerships/Experiential learning partnerships in Australian and New Zealand higher education planning programmes/Res non verba? rediscove}, journal = {Planning Theory \& Practice}, volume = {16}, number = {3}, year = {2015}, pages = {409{\textendash}434}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, author = {Porter, Libby and Slade, Christine and Butt, Andrew and Rosier, Jo and Perkins, Tim and Crookes, Lee and Inch, Andy and Slade, Jason and Bassa, Faranaaz and Petzer, Brett and others} } @book {porter2013planning, title = {Planning with Indigenous Customary Land Rights: An Investigation of Shifts in Planning Law and Governance in British Columbia, Canada and Victoria, Australia: Final Project Report}, year = {2013}, publisher = {Economic and Social Research Council}, organization = {Economic and Social Research Council}, author = {Porter, Libby and Barry, Janice} } @article {saarikoski2013understanding, title = {Understanding {\textquoteleft}successful{\textquoteright}conflict resolution: policy regime changes and new interactive arenas in the Great Bear Rainforest}, journal = {Land Use Policy}, volume = {32}, year = {2013}, pages = {271{\textendash}280}, publisher = {Elsevier}, author = {Saarikoski, Heli and Raitio, Kaisa and Barry, Janice} } @article {barry2012indigenous, title = {Indigenous recognition in state-based planning systems: Understanding textual mediation in the contact zone}, journal = {Planning Theory}, volume = {11}, number = {2}, year = {2012}, pages = {170{\textendash}187}, publisher = {Sage Publications Sage UK: London, England}, author = {Barry, Janice and Porter, Libby} } @article {barry2012indigenous, title = {Indigenous state planning as inter-institutional capacity development: The evolution of {\textquotedblleft}government-to-government{\textquotedblright} relations in coastal British Columbia, Canada}, journal = {Planning theory \& practice}, volume = {13}, number = {2}, year = {2012}, pages = {213{\textendash}231}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis Group}, author = {Barry, Janice} } @article {barry2011mobilized, title = {Mobilized bias and multistakeholder protected-area planning: a socio-institutional perspective on collaboration}, journal = {Society \& Natural Resources}, volume = {24}, number = {10}, year = {2011}, pages = {1116{\textendash}1126}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, author = {Barry, Janice M} } @proceedings {barry2004challenges, title = {The Challenges of Collaborative Land-Use Planning: A Case Study of the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site}, journal = {Planning Northern Parks and Protected Areas. Parks and Protected Areas Research in Ontario, Proceedings of the Parks Research Forum of Ontario}, year = {2004}, pages = {221{\textendash}227}, author = {Barry, Janice} } @conference {barry2003collaborative, title = {Collaborative natural resource management and its applicability to protected area planning}, booktitle = {Parks Research Forum of Ontario (PRFO)}, year = {2003}, author = {Barry, Janice} }