Pilbara ‘Designscape’ Symposium
Building Pilbara’s Capacity throughInclusive Design
UDLA – Greg Grabasch Fiona Hurse | |0409 336 026
Abstract
This paper is an exploration of regional landscape planning through alternative development (AD) methods (De Paula et al 2005). AD intends to expand regional peoples, including Aboriginal peoples control over the things that matter, to increase their economic, political and social freedom as they understand those things through the lens of their own cultural values’ (Hibbard et al 2013). The article discusses UDLA’s inclusive approach into public planning and design interventions within the North West desert region of Western Australia. The article commences by providing a North West Australia cultural and social environmental context and continues to discuss elements of the participatory planning and design approach, exploring key learning’s to date.
Prelude
A Ngarluma Aboriginal Elder standing on a dune with his back to the ocean looks out across Australia’s vast Spinifex covered landscape and smiles, 'it is good to sing country again'. All of a sudden there was a realisation that both the land and this Traditional man were mutually benefitting from this moment and it was evident that this shared understanding was more than physical.
When Aboriginal people have the opportunity to ‘yarn on country’ there is a renewal of a bond, possibly a spiritual connection, or a sense that only comes when one is communing with an old friend. The more opportunity our design team have to accompany traditional people ‘on country’,the more we are aware of this symbiotic connection.
To be more clinical, or possibly scientific, this understanding between the landscape and the Australian Aboriginal could be understood as having formed over eons of time spent where the‘mob’ havemoved with the rhythms of their country. There is dual benefit or a shared interrelationship that has been developed, where the health of the Australian landscape becomes undividedwith the health of its Traditional Custodians. This Aboriginal sensitivity to the landscape redefines the polarised view of human versus 'nature' or the customary instinct that leads to a colonial need to ‘tame the wilderness’.
There are many publicationsexploring how Aboriginal People managed the land using intricate land management practices developed from their thorough understanding of their environment. Now two hundred years on from colonisation, the prospect for Australian Indigenous peoples to sensitively manage country has been eroded, fragmented and broken. Much of the UDLA team’sprofessional relationship with Aboriginal people involves investigations intocontemporary cultural land management,and facilitating culturally sensitive design within town or regional development projects. A Cultural management plan has the potential to provide Traditional Peoples with a responsive ‘plan for country’ - an empowering resource collated from years of knowledge, and aneducative resource over which planning, land and social issues may be discussed overCulturally sensitive planningpositively informs people who visit, live, work and play on Australia’s Traditional Land’s.
First Impressions
There is a rugged naivety and purpose in the recent town developments of the Pilbara, much like a young bachelor using his new pad to grease his motorbike, scatter his dirty washing, and lay out his toolbox. As a generalisation, a bachelor is unlikely to consider the new window dressing that will filter the afternoon sunlight, and enhance the experience of reading a book on the carefully selected furniture. How things can change when that special life partner shows up on the scene!
In a similar manner, many North Western towns have acquired a rugged built form, rolling out masculine engineered spaces that although highly practical for large vehicle use, often lack attention to the design of social places andhuman amenity allowingpeople to engage with and inspire respect of place. Working effectively with the complex condition that shapes the Pilbara lies within a multidisciplinary approach to which Planners, Designers and Practitioners have the opportunity to assist with the provision of equitable land and open space planning.
This regional development and spatial typology, evident within many Western Australia frontier towns, had until recently escaped serious critique. Yet the media continues to report increasing social problems, cultural disparity, and communities filled with low self-esteem, drinking problems, workers and professionals who would rather fly in - fly out, than live in, and contribute to, these communities.
But does this necessarily have to be the norm?There are counter-examples ofAustralian towns whichwere developed in the mid 19th century on the back of an extractive industry boom. Townssuch as Kalgoorlie, Bendigo, Ballarat, etc.
A speedy inquiry into Bendigo’s ‘chronological development’ notes that the town area was settled in 1851, proclaimed a municipality in 1855, a borough in 1863 and a city in 1871. Within 20 years ‘Bendigo’s legacy already included all the magnificent town parklands and ornate buildings built in the late Victorian colonial style, contributing to a picturesque "French" cityscapeof which the public amenity is valued and enjoyed today. All other towns of this era, even silver and tin mining towns prospered fromwealth being distributed back into the development of local public amenity.
Introduction
Our teams approach reflects growing acknowledgement among scholars that the term ‘environment’ has expanded to include not only traditional ecological elements, but also those of a social nature, ultimately incorporating-the natural environment (Johnson et al, 1997), built environment (Brugmann, 2009), and social environment (Case, 2003). The result of this shift in philosophy is that the “environment” is now considered to be a place where people live, work and play. To achieve holistic sustainability objectives, we must recognise and build uponlocalknowledge and advocate for decentralising local decision making.
Lilli Licka’s essay ‘Landscape X-Periments – concerning landscape architectural design approaches’ discusses the understanding of a dynamic landscape(Licka, 2006).
‘Landscape is not static but is a continuous process of alteration and development. As landscape architects, we interfere in this process.’
Dynamic landscape architecture is thus a continuous feedback loop between communities, decision-makers and designers, offering a robust solution that gives permission for a space to be interpreted and changed through ongoing public interaction, public governance and design processes.
The demands of contemporary society within the public realm are constantly evolving and are rich with complexity. To keep up with these demands,the professions that intervenewith the public realm, are required towork seamlessly across disciplines, be inclusive,andless singular minded with regard to just delivering builtoutcomes.
The holistic sustainable approach to publicinterventionmust be responsive to a community’s unique social environmental condition.It requires a purging of traditional ‘top down’ practice to redefine public intervention as atwo-way learning process,facilitated via local knowledge and local decision making. An inclusive approach aims to develop local capacity and social capital, rather than request for ‘after the fact’ comment as with traditional consultation.
The Language Surrounding Town Development Community Engagement
The language surrounding town development and public engagement seems to be fraught withambiguous and polarizing ideology whichraises more questions than answers. Directly focusing on this topic allows us to corral thoughts on a subject that is full of complexities, in the hope of informing contemporary public intervention.
Often, development and economical ‘boom’ activity are interpreted as devices by which to normalise Pilbara towns, however local knowledge, a rich culture and a unique ‘sense of place’ already exist. The story of the Pilbara ‘as an economy, rather than a society’ (Edmunds 2012) tends to over shadow its already unique social environmental value.
In the same way, developers often romanticize the idea of 'community’ by promoting aspirational scenes of middle-class, sanitized lifestyles, whereas an actual community cannot be nearly so neatly depicted. Communities are far more diverse, far messier and considerably more complex.They could be more objectively described as 'a congregation” of people sharing an areadefined by a particular spatial or environmental characteristicwith a physical proximity and connection to a place. While generalizations may be made about shared aspirations, these aspirationscan’t be said to describe a community. Essentiallyit boils down to 'people” and 'place.’
Mae Shaw observes that the terms used in public engagement, such as 'community’ and 'place,’ have become infused with idealistic ambiguity and partisan political nuance. This ambiguity can be problematic unless the language of public engagement is clarified. For example, a 'healthy community” is often politically portrayed as a group of people united in similar lifestyle ideals, class and/or socioeconomic circumstance. The same can be said of the word 'place” (placemaking). These terms frequently refer to a glassy-eyed, media-driven view of communities notable for whom and what is excluded or marginalized(Shaw, 2008).
InclusiveDesignSkills
This journal article suggests that most public interventionprofessionals, be it policy, planning or designstill undertake a traditional planning process that may include context analysis, a survey of client requirements and expectations, and possibly a shallow level of 'public consultation’ (often only informing certain members of the public about the already-agreed-on plan or policy direction). These preliminary actions are then followed by desktop implementation, and in this way the planning process plays out literally behind closed doors. End users of the public intervention awaken from their metaphorical slumber to be greeted by the day’s news spruiking the latest shiny development to be imposed on their town.
In his radio blog ‘Public engagement and co-design for wicked problems’, Dr Don Lenihan discusses facilitating broad public engagement given the complexities of implementing policy in the contemporary public realm (Lenihan, 2012).
...Traditionally, policy (planning) in the public realm can be said to be a competitive process where within the power stakes there are winners and losers. The winners tend to be the policy makers (planner/designers) who hold the power of decision whereas the loser tends to be the end user who is required to accept the (spatial) outcomes without the possibility of participating within the decision-making process.
Dr Lenihan proceeds to observe that the modus operandi of 'command and control’ is deeply entrenched in all levels of the professional and government systems. This traditional approach does not allow for complex public-sphere issues to be appropriately engaged with and holistically addressed. As such, the 'command and control” approach to public matters is increasingly not being acceptedby the general public due to a developing history of failure, misaligned expectations,or recognised poor outcomes (also possibly due to a generational response to the GlobalFinancial Crisis and mistrust in 'the system’). If people are expected to accept decisions made from above, without information or the opportunity for personal participation andmeaningful feedback, the decision-making process will become a relic of the past.
Recognising town development as a multi-disciplinaryresponsibility,the industry needs to acquire the necessary skills to facilitate willingcitizens within an inclusive planning process.Fromongoing experience, our design teamview the process as a two-way learning experience and have acknowledged three critical stagesfor which thepublic need to be included within the planning and design of developments.
The three critical stages are simply the ABC’s of policy, planning or design development;
A) Context & Analysis (quadruple bottom line analysis)
B) Exploration & Testing (policy, planning designscenarios), and
C) Synthesis (agreed direction).
Having citizens being able to participate in a richplanning process requiresthe projectfacilitators to gainappropriate knowledge and personal skillsthat can be distilled as follows;
1)Understanding
Inclusive and participatory design commences prior to first contact. Town development practitioners must understand the project environment (ecological, social, and economic), the history, which events and beliefs have shaped current existence, and the degree to which there is currently capacity in the participants and associated community. This includes the town’s capacity with regards to recent project maintenance and management and exploring current and ongoing funding opportunities.
In this phase of understanding, the primary role of government agencies or other organisations who may be involved in the design effort are to serve as repositories of knowledge. For example, many multinational extractive industry companies sponsor social impact studies which develop baseline measures of various features of the communities they plan to enter in order to do business. Availability of such prior knowledge to all parties involved in community development is critical.
2)Relationships
In the Pilbara, projects frequently commence on a formal and official level with Local Governments, Key Stakeholders, etc, inviting the community to large meetingswhich most often is attended by the same participants or results in a ‘no show’. From these experiencesour team soon realised the importance of meeting people on their own terms, developing informal meeting opportunities and building relationships by listening ‘one on one’. This maycontinue for a number of months until relationships and two-way level of trust, understanding and respect is developed. In our work inthe Pilbara thisinitially included developing the understanding that our team was not just another ‘blow in’ that promised the world and failed to see the project through to full realisation.
During the relationship building phase, the creation of trust is imperative to opening the channels of communication between members of the engagement team and the residents, stakeholders and project participants.Depending on cultural norms, this may involve many hours of active listening, social interaction and discussion. To be long term sustainable planners and designers, we are requiredto undertake relationship building activities over numerous years within communities, using a personal style of interaction to gain an appropriate level of trust and respect. This is critical in the Pilbara context.
3)Respect
Out of participant respect, the designer is now required to become afacilitator rather than providing an adversarial and/ or God-like approach to public intervention decisions. Such an approach is quite contrary to the typical policy, planning and design process in which the designer uses their qualifications as the key driving force in their policy, planning or design resolutions. Sensitive public intervention facilitators require sharing educational tools such as analysis, evaluation, use of similar precedents and development of conceptual options. The participant(s)and facilitator(s) benefit from two-way learning’s at each stage of the planning / design process. This approach directly places the contributor within the decision making process. If facilitated sensitively and respectfully, the capacity of participants isincreased and there are also substantial benefits to projectimplementation and ongoing management.
The primary role of any organisations or client involved in the projects public intervention is todemonstraterespect, support and openness to contributor’s ideas, needs, and priorities expressed, to encourage broad and on-going participation,as well as make effortsto publicise success stories. It is often stated that aninterventions level of success often depends on a good client; in particular a client that is open to public facilitated participatory decision making.
Techniques for optimal participation also involve working with established community andstakeholder groups, rather than imposing purpose built committees. It does become quickly evident that active people within smallerPilbara communities are already stretched, often over workedand are also keeping abreast many menial community tasks. Finding a way to support these champions can often be the beginnings of allowing space for the community to develop or grow in new directions.
Facilitation and coordination practices continue beyond the publicintervention itself, in order to assist participants in finalising their project or community objective. A sustainable result should lead to a strong sense of ownership. It is no longer the “policy maker, planner or designer’s project,” rather it is the participant or community’s result.
Summary
In summary, the successful progress of an inclusive and participatory planning approach within community intervention hinges on two-way learning and sensitive exposure with the participants, developed and conducted respectfullythrough an inclusive and participatory process. This has shown to achieve both increasedcapacity and social capitalwhich includes establishing ongoing sustainable funding and governance.
Policy makers, planners, designers and the development industry need not focus on why they should engage more inclusively and meaningfully withintheir public interventions,as contemporary society assumes this is a given. The focus needs to be more on developing a successful engagement strategy which results in holistically benefittingthe end users.It may take some time for traditional systems to meet this expectation of inclusive and participatoryengagement. Necessity, however, always drives change.
References
Brugmann, J. 2009. Welcome to the urban revolution: how cities are changing the world, Bloomsbury Press.
Case, A. 2003. Key Performance Indicators – Gauteng – Demographic Health Survey & Actuarial Society of SA.
De Paula, Silvana, and Gary A. Dymski. 2005 Reimagining Growth: Towards a Renewal of Development Theory. New York: Zed Books.
Edmunds, M ‘A New Story – Roebourne; a case study’, Chapter 12 in Walker B (Ed), The Challenge, Conversation, Commissioned Papers and Regional Studies of Remote Australia, Desert Knowledge Australia, Alice Springs pp 152-180
Hibbard, Michael and Adkins, Robert 2013 Culture & Economy: The Cruel Choice Revisited. Reclaiming Indigenous Planning, Edited by Ryan Walker, Ted Jojola and David Natcher. MQ University Press
Johnson, D.L., S.H. Ambrose, T.J. Bassett, M.L. Bowen, D.E. Crummey, J.S. Isaacson, D.N. Johnson, P. Lamb, M. Saul, and A.E. Winter-Nelson. 1997. Meanings of environmental terms. Journal of Environmental Quality 26: 581-589.
Lenihan, Dr. D Public engagement and co-design for wicked problems, Gov 2.0 Radio, May 11 2012, gov20radio. com/2012/05/public-engagement/ (accessed 23 May 2013).