Collisions at the Corner of Settler Colonial Way & Institution Street (March 16, 2025)
...Should we unlearn Settler Colonial practices?
While as we seemingly face existential economic, social, political and governance threats, it is important we as elected officials, planners and other administrators step back and ask ourselves why. How did we get here (i.e. settler colonialism)? And because this is a parks vlog, where do parks and park services fit, or not fit, in this discourse? I use institutional theory to explore our past, present and future vis a vis settler colonial legislation.
Vlog Overview
"Parks and Like Icebergs" (PALI) is an exploration of various aspects related to municipal parks, including urban parks planning and subsequent park service operationalization. Aspects discussed include policy, strategic planning, park system planning in area plans, park land acquisition through purchase or subdivision, zoning, plans of subdivision, engineering drawings, servicing agreements, and construction approval processes. What you see on the ground is based on a multi-phased multi-year with multiple social actors based on legislation, policy and practices that are largely unseen nor understood.
The vlog marries my extensive municipal planning experience (32+ yrs), including 29+ years as a parks practitioner years, with a PhD in parks planning decision-making using institutional theory in Edmonton Albertan in park land decision-making. In addition, I have created and taught four, three credit courses, in municipal parks planning at the University of Alberta in their urban planning program to fourth year and graduate students. The University urban planning program has been accredited by the Canadian Institute of Planners. See my “about” section that describes in more detail my lens (including biases) shaped by my education, background and experiences. I am available as a teacher, guest speaker, coach, consultant, keynote speaker, etc.
The vlog's intended audience include elected officials, planning professionals, landscape architects, consultants, community engagement practitioners, recreationists, academics, community NGOs, and individual and group planning process social actors. I also have a Phd, in sarcasm, use self deprecating humour, storytelling, and use lots of adjectives and adverbs. Parkies (like me) gotta’ have fun!
Todays Ice Sculpture: Collisions at the Corner of Settler Colonial Way & Institutional Street
(Note: I am not indigenous person, so my interpretations here a part of my personal journey to understand these connections, sourced through readings and discussions with indigenous peoples. I do not pretend to speak for First Nations Peoples. All of what you see here are my own thoughts and perspectives. I apologize in advance to First Nations people if I have misinterpreted these connections, and welcome your feedback.)
The first task is to define a number of concepts. What is settler colonialism? What is an Institution? What is the Economic Institution? What is a Parks Institution? How do these all intersect in the parks world? My hope is that this interrogation may allow us to begin the journey to unlearn settler colonial practices.
What is Settler Colonialism?
Settler colonialism is the displacement of Indigenous peoples from their land and culture, and the establishment of settler societies in their place. An indigenous worldview sees the whole person (i.e., physical, emotional, spiritual and intellectual) as interconnected to land and in relationship to others (family, communities, nations). Settlers seize control of land and resources, through legislation, policies and practices.
Settler Colonial Legislation, Policies and Practices
So when worldviews collide, “how” are the worldviews actually contested today in settler colonial practice settings? This requires an examination of the actual legislation, strategies, policies, processes, and practices. Planning legislation in Alberta is the Municipal Government Act of Alberta. There is no power sharing per se in settler colonial legislation whereby individual landowners/entities cede control of land to others, and no requirement to protect the land and environment within their control. There is a requirement to notify impacted property and stakeholders, in practices created locally.
The primary venue/opportunity to contest land use decisions is at a public hearing1 where opponents and supporters can speak face to face with elected officials and administrators, with media present in a council chamber at date negotiated between the proponent, administrators and elected officials.
While limiting community engagement to public hearings is entirely legal, planning scholars like Kerrie Farkas (2013) had this to say about a study that reviewed public hearings as part of democratic decision-making processes:
“Results demonstrate that although the public has access to the public hearings, their access is controlled and restricted not only during the hearings but in the entire legislative, agenda-setting, and decision-making processes preceding the hearings.” Farkas (2013) pg. 399.
Municipal strategies and policies can be unilaterally overridden by elected officials as they deem necessary. Municipal practices also evolve over time with or without dialogue with the community or elected officials, and include a significant amount of administrative discretion.
Indigenous Scholar Heather Dorries (see reference below), has suggested that settler colonial legislation creates racialized landscapes. She has written and spoke about removal of homeless encampments on park land in Toronto has meant that indigenous peoples have been separated from the land twice: Once, through settler colonial legislation; and second through policy that removes indigenous peoples from the site. This issue went through the courts that gave the City of Toronto the legal right to remove them from the property for health and safety reasons, while simultaneously ignoring contrary City reconciliation policy.
At its core, settler colonial legislation, strategies, policies and governance practices create institutions. This is an artifact of the system, not a bug.
What is an Institution?
Institutional theory applied to land use decision-making processes argues that legislation, processes and standards evolve over time, not solely based on direction from hegemonic decision makers (i.e., elected officials). Community social actors (i.e., advocacy groups/NGOs, individuals) can influence and/or drive change to those same factors themselves over time. Consequently, institutional theory argues that decision-making is shared between state and non-state actors. There are multiple institutions operating at any one time, including parks, housing, developers/economic interests, environment, parks/recreation, etc, that overlap and/or compete for scarce resources in terms of land, infrastructure, financial and other resources.
Such institutions are physically invisible as a collective entity and tend to be transactional. Individuals and groups coalesce around issues of their interest of benefit or dis-benefit, endure, grow and /or disappear. Members include state and non-state social actors of different levels of power and agency.
What is an Economic Institution?
An economic institution is a group of social actors that coalesce use capital markets (i.e., settler colonial legislation and policies) to create physical infrastructure (i.e., plans, plans or subdivision/property, roads, utilities) that facilitates and finances the construction and sale of residential, commercial, industrial development into peri-urban areas, and/or redevelop already developed areas (i.e., mature areas). Examples of economic social actors include banks, developers, consulting firms, landowners (i.e., farmers), homebuilders, utility companies, construction companies (i.e., road builders), landscapers, tree nurseries, greenhouses, quarries, NGO’s (i.e., Bild), in addition to state actors such as planning administrators and elected politicians of all three levels of government. These social actors also may have their feet planted locally, provincially, nationally or internationally, or combination thereof. As such local needs and considerations may be driven by non-local interests (i.e., finance). At their worst, capital markets are indifferent to human suffering. The foundation of the economic property development institution is settler colonial legislation, strategies, policies, processes and practices.
What is a Parks Institution?
Once a park property (as per settler colonial legisaltion) has been defined and acquired by the municipality or school board, park development, programming and some maintenance are downloaded to community social actors, an artifact of settler colonial legislation and policies. Reliance on community social actors also means that the community develops a relational (non-ownership) stake in park spaces, once again an artifact of settler colonial legislation and neoliberal policies.
Community social actors transform spaces (i.e., properties), created in land use processes (i.e., settler colonial legislation) into places imbued with meaning by the community through kinetic engagement2 of community volunteers. Such relationships require elected officials, administrators (i.e., planners, landscape architects, project managers, operations staff, liaison staff, communications), community social actors ( i.e., umbrella environmental groups, minor sport groups, volunteers, etc), working together, that collectively constitute the parks institution (i.e., both state and non-state community volunteers/ social actors). Once park amenities are constructed or preserved (i.e.,natural areas) and used/ operational, there are multiple recreation and leisure institutional sub-groups (i.e., hockey, ringette, soccer, baseball, football et minor sports, individual schools, environmental groups, dog off leash communities, etc.) that interface with each other and the state, that promote or contest change as needs grow and evolve.
The importance of the relational connection to “park” land is presaged in settler colonial property legislation in Alberta by assigning a municipal reserve designation to each park parcel, that places additional public process steps prior to disposition for a non-park use.
Park Collisions
Parks have a compromised if not antithetical foot planted in both worlds. The creation of a legally defined park spaces or a park system in land use change processes are themselves a settler colonial act. A land title parcel(s) have a specific geographic location, dimensions, shape and location. Somebody or some entity owns it, with associated rights and privileges. No such concept is consistent with indigenous peoples worldviews.
However, park users do have a relational connection to the land with qualities that may partially align with indigenous world view. Parks are intended to be accessible to all regardless of ownership provided by the community, and used for the collective benefit of the community. They see connections between the land, families and community. Indigenous peoples assume a role in using and shaping the landscape in ways that integrally respect that land itself, not deemed separate from the land itself. The importance of this relational connection is presaged even in settler colonial property legislation by assigning a municipal reserve designation to each park parcel, that places additional public process steps prior to disposition (very settler like) for a non-park use.
Having said that, activities defined in settler colonial legislation are limited to education, parks, recreation and leisure activities, not other uses (i.e., housing, farming, industry, etc.), not to mention include ownership rights assigned to an entity (i.e., municipal government). These limitations diverges from the indigenous world view.
Park infrastructure and park services face an existential threat today as hegemonic economic social actors seek to limit or reduce public spaces which results in more land to develop, and do so through expedited approval processes. The reason/rationale is not complicated. In peri-urban areas, developers seek more raw land to develop, which reduces per hectare development costs and increase profits when sold. In already developed mature areas, the only unencumbered and serviced land to develop are public parks. All other lands are developed, encumbered, require demolition and/or environmental remediation. Moreover, new residential properties located adjacent to parks increase those properties values by up to 20% (Harnik and Crompton, 2014, and Alberta Recreation and Parks, 2007), even more when adjacent to river valley and ravines. In both cases, the loss of public infrastructure means less services, reduced ecological, economic, ecological, social, health and wellness benefits and outcomes that have been well documented to be provided by that infrastructure and services.
Todays development realities and practices, and growing climate change realities exacerbate this loss of infrastructure. The (necessary) move to multi-family development in both peri-urban and mature areas will reduce permeable surfaces, and create urban heat islands. More extreme weather events will mean more flooding, landslides, and uncontrolled wildfires. In addition to table lands, Edmontons river valley is also at risk to these existential threats in extreme rain events. We will need to invest in more soft (i.e., trees, parks) and hard infrastructure (i.e., utilities, eco building stds), which will increase property taxes and reduce housing affordability. Loss of parks and parks services at this time? Ready, Shoot, Aim!
Practice Reflections
In these times of existential threats and as always, the planners job is to create and implement legislation, create strategies, policies, processes and practices to facilitate the creation of urban infrastructure that supports socially, culturally, healthy, ecologically and economically sustainable cities. Few planners act unethically, and work behind the scenes to advocate for the public implicitly or explicitly. Having said that, philosophical differences between planners are not unusual. We do love to talk, alot! I believe we have work to do examining our core beliefs through an institutional lens. We and the community can make the changes we want to become.
My takes…
Settler colonial based legislation, strategies, policies and governance practices are fundamentally flawed in large part because of its property/economic/capital focus, rather than more inclusive indigenous shared relational world view. This should be revisited. I believe whatever changes we make to address settler colonial legislation, strategies, policies, processes and practices, fundamentally benefit everyone, not just our first nations peoples.
Within the confines of the current settler colonial settings, we should task ourselves with adjusting the balance between the hegemonic economic institutions and our cultural, human and ecological institutions?
Within the confines of the current settler colonial settings, our processes are only as good as the inclusivity, transparency, accuracy, and timeliness of knowledge dissemination to social actors while simultaneously recognizing different levels of power and agency and knowledge disparity within those processes. (Spoiler alert - we can do more and better)
Access to “a” settler colonial process of any kind is not the same as meaningful community engagement. The latter does not lend itself well to expedited decision-making (i.e., omnibus reports, blanket zoning). At what cost (i.e., trust in government) do we inflict on our communities and planners when we assume we know more than the community, that they can’t make difficult decisions, at a time when social media distorts reality especially in times of existential threats? I know this is counter intuitive when speed of approvals is todays neoliberal social media mantra driven by economics, think City Slow Movement, and rebuild trust in government.
Have you examined your personal ethical responsibility to your craft? Who do you work for? Represent? Your immediate supervisor? Your senior management team? Your company shareholders? Your elected officials? The public(s) you serve? (For example, would you repeat a politically driven corporate change rationale to the public that mis-states past policy or practices, uses ambiguous language, and/or leaves out critical information?)
And, because I can’t help my parkie self/dementia….
Robert Rule I. There is no sustainable city rationale that leads to the redevelopment of existing or planned public parks, at a time when we are densifying our cities and simultaneously creating urban heat islands, while climate change induced wild storm events and wild fires ravage our landscapes. The only possible exception to Roberts rule is for 100% of redeveloped public park lands dedicated entirely to below not for profit housing, or vulnerable population support program property/organizations (i.e., not for-profit partners).
Roberts Rule II. If urban planners are going to shape park system infrastructure decisions, accredited Canadian urban planning programs need to include municipal park planning and park service operationalization as core competencies. The only full term municipal urban parks planning course in Canada in an accredited planning program, that I am aware of, is an optional course I teach at the University of Alberta to fourth year and graduate students. (btw…I relish the opportunity to teach this course.) If other programs have such a course, or would like to discuss the creation of one, please contact me in the comments section.
References
Alberta Recreation and Parks Association. Assessing the Proximate Value of Parks and Open Space to Residential Properties in Alberta. Location: Edmonton, Alberta. 2007 Retrieved from https://arpaonline.ca/
Farkas, Kerrie, R.H. “Citizen (In) Action: The Limits of Civic Discourse in City Council Meetings.” Critical Discourse Studies 10 (2013): 81-98. doi. 10.1080/17405904.2012.736702.
Harnik, Peter and John Crompton. “Measuring the Total Economic Value of a Park System to a Community.” Managing Leisure 19 (2014): 188-211. doi:10.1080/13606719.2014.885713.
Heather Dorries, University of Toronto, Sacred Fires, Homeless Encampments, and Planning Toronto Parks, March 2023 https://law.utexas.edu/humanrights/events/sacred-fires-homeless-encampments-and-planning-toronto-parks/
There are other ways for the public to express their support or concerns. They can phone a planner if they are notified of the proposed land use change, request a meeting with their councillor and/or the planner, attend a public meeting, although not required by legislation, hosted by the proponent. However, this assumes knowledge dissemination (i.e., site signs, mailed notices are provided to all impacted users, council reports) are legible (i.e, not written in legalese and planner speak) and are provided in a timely fashion.
Kinetic engagement is the notion that park amenities and services are not provided unless and until community social actors consciously physically participate in fund raising and service delivery (i.e., coaches, festival volunteers, etc) activities, like no other municipal service.