Recent discussions about the complicity of mainstream western planning with colonialism raise questions regarding what it means to decolonize planning theory and practice. In this article, I examine some of the lines of argument permeating these theoretical debates focusing on the apparent tension between scholars who understand a decolonization of planning in ethical and discursive terms, and those who emphasize Indigenous rights and recognition. I conclude that a decolonized planning discipline and practice demands ethical, discursive, and institutional transformations. I also advance ideas regarding the challenges of moving beyond individual, self-reflexive change toward a broader understanding of decolonization in planning.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 51 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.