Institutt for Samfunnsvitenskap / Faculty of Social Sciences

Arctic Entrance:

Opening the door to alternative trajectories for Indigenous housing through a decolonizing of
planning practice

Harriet Stanford

Master’s thesis in Nordic Urban Planning Studies SPL-3901 June 2021

Acknowledgements
I owe the greatest debt of gratitude to my patient and thoughtful supervisors, Camilla Brattland and Aileen
Espiritu – thank you for your guidance. I would also like to thank those whose conversations, advice,
connections, and ideas helped guide me in starting my research process, namely Julia Christensen and
Susane Havelka. Thank you to Anna Barley for your mentorship, encouragement, and for sparking my
interest in this topic. A massive thank you goes to the folks who agreed to let me interview them, generously
lending their time and sharing their wisdom and perspectives with me – Nelson Lepine, Shelagh
McCartney, Aaron Cooke, Lynn Jacobs, Stacey Fritz, and Anthony Persaud. Finally, I am eternally grateful
to and in awe of the dedicated and brilliant staff at the First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun and the Na-cho
Nyäk Dun Development Corporation – Adrienne Hill, Eric Huggard, and Jani Djokic, thank you for giving
me the opportunity to learn from you.
Summary
Indigenous communities across Canada are facing a crisis in housing. In response, new and innovative
designs, policies, and programs are being developed in attempt to shift away from harmful colonial-
imposed models to ones that advance autonomy, healthy living, and cultural revitalization. This important
shift has sparked debate and speculation about what a reclaiming or “decolonization” of planning looks
like in practice. To explore what this emergent planning paradigm means in the context of rural, remote,
and northern Indigenous communities, I interviewed experts working in or with Indigenous communities
across Canada and Alaska, USA, in addition to undertaking case study and action research with the First
Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun in Yukon, Canada. In contributing to established principles of good planning
with Indigenous communities, my research suggests that a decolonized approach to housing planning is
one that is inclusive off all community groups, integrates multiple objectives and needs, is sensitive to the
surrounding landscape, builds on past work, sparks creativity and innovation, enables better understanding
of both possibilities and trade-offs, and creates tangible and immediate change on the ground while acting
with a long-term focus. My findings also suggests that there are particular planning considerations that
should be taken into account when working in the north, and that planning as a practice should be
reflexively critiqued, rethought, and transformed if it is to serve in support of communities in their self-
determined transformation.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Thesis Structure .......................................................................................................... 2

2 Theory ................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................. 3

2.2 Decolonizing and Indigenous Planning...................................................................... 3

2.3 Arctic Urbanism ......................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Housing as a System .................................................................................................. 7

2.4.1 Comprehensive Planning.................................................................................... 9

2.4.2 Sustainability ...................................................................................................... 9

3 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Understanding the Housing Crisis............................................................................ 10

3.2 Culturally Appropriate Housing and Planning ......................................................... 11

3.2.1 International ..................................................................................................... 11

3.2.2 Canada .............................................................................................................. 12

3.3 Northern Housing and Planning ............................................................................... 12

4 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Reflective Practice and Learning from Others ......................................................... 14

4.2 Consideration of Indigenous Research Methodologies ............................................ 15

4.3 Researcher Positionality ........................................................................................... 16

4.4 Research with Experts .............................................................................................. 16

4.4.1 Qualitative Research interviews ....................................................................... 17

4.4.2 Ethics and Consent ........................................................................................... 17

4.4.3 Interview Participants ....................................................................................... 18

4.4.4 Interview Analysis............................................................................................ 18

4.5 Research with Community ....................................................................................... 19

 4.5.1 Participatory Action Research .......................................................................... 19

4.5.2 Case Study Methodology ................................................................................. 20

5 Background ...................................................................................................................... 21

5.1 Canada’s North and Housing ................................................................................... 21

5.2 Indigenous Communities and Housing .................................................................... 23

6 Case Study: First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun Housing System .................................... 24

6.1 Self-Governance and Housing ................................................................................. 24

6.2 Historical Context .................................................................................................... 25

6.3 Overview of Community and Housing .................................................................... 26

7 Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 28

7.1 Analytical Framework .............................................................................................. 28

7.2 Analysis 1: Dimensions of Planning Housing in Rural, Remote, and Northern

Indigenous Communities...................................................................................................... 29

7.2.1 Engage a broad cross-section of the community .............................................. 29

7.2.2 Value local and traditional knowledge as well as outside ideas ...................... 32

7.2.3 Reflection on the past and present.................................................................... 34

7.2.4 Connect the physical and social ....................................................................... 37

7.2.5 Establish a united direction for the future ........................................................ 45

7.3 Analysis 2: Additional Principles for the North and Planning Practice ................... 52

7.3.1 Lessons from the north: dimensions of northern living and building .............. 53

7.3.2 Role of the Planner ........................................................................................... 59

8 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 62

9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 65

9.1 Implications and areas of future research ................................................................. 66

Works Cited.............................................................................................................................. 67

Appendix 1: Interview Guide ................................................................................................... 73

Appendix 2: Summary of Findings .......................................................................................... 75

List of Tables
Table 1 – Description of expert interview participants ............................................................ 18

List of Figures
Figure 1 - Village of Mayo and surrounding area. C6 subdivision pictured in yellow polygon;
southeast subdivision in red polygon. From Google Maps, by Google ................................... 26

Figure 2 - First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun administration building on the corner of C6 site,
overlooking Village of Mayo. First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun Facebook page. ................. 27
“Housing is only one aspect at the end of the day. It is frustrating for me that we only focus on one thing,
when, from my perspective - housing is a part and parcel of life, we know we need it, I’m not trying to
devalue that part - but the main focus should be people. If you focus on people, a lot of these issues that
are out there do go away, and housing is one of them.” (Nelson Lepine)

1 Introduction
Indigenous1 communities across Canada are facing a housing crisis, characterized by a severe shortage,
underfunding, and poor quality, ageing, and unhealthy structures. These challenges are further exacerbated
in the north, where housing is affected by buildings inappropriate to the harsh environment, high costs of
materials and transport, and the effects of climate change. It is apparent that conventional models of
planning and housing are failing Indigenous communities across Canada, and the resultant housing crisis
will not be resolved by building more dwelling units if the same approaches are kept. Thus, there is a
knowledge gap and research need for generating an understanding of how to avoid repeating and
perpetuating the same detrimental models.

However, in recent years there has been a resurgent interest and energy towards reimagining built forms
that embody cultural values, and many Indigenous communities across Canada and indeed the globe are
leading the way in creating buildings and community plans that are both innovative and culturally
grounded. While there has been comparably less progress in the past with regards to housing in northern
Canada, researchers, planners, and locals alike are experimenting, inventing, imagining, and creating
housing design and policy that are creative and adaptive to the unique needs of diverse peoples. These
resurgent and insurgent practices in housing and planning seek both to unsettle and redress the harms and
power structures of colonialism, as well as envision a better future for the next generations.

As communities endeavour to spark positive transformation, build better houses, revitalize cultural
traditions and language, and create healthier places for citizens to live, all while contending with the
pervasive hangover of colonialism, there is significant debate and speculation about what such a planning
approach might look like that can meaningfully address and advance these needs and aspirations in tandem.

1
A note on terminology employed in this thesis: ‘Indigenous’, ‘Indigenous Peoples’, ‘Indigenous communities’ and ‘Indigeneity’ are used
as collective terms to refer to the original peoples and their descendants of North America, including First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. This is
the most popular and widely accepted term used in Canada. The terms ‘Métis’, ‘Inuit’ and ‘First Nations’ fall under the umbrella terms of
Aboriginal and Indigenous in the case of Canada, referring to the three distinct groups formally recognized in the Canadian Constitution.
The term ‘Aboriginal’ and ‘Aboriginal Peoples’, is the legal collective noun used in Canada’s ‘Constitution Act 1982’ and refers to the original
peoples and their descendants in North America, however some Indigenous groups prefer not to be called this and it is becoming less
widely employed outside of legal lexicon. The term ‘Indian’ refers to the legal identity of an Indigenous person who is registered under
the ‘Indian Act’ – but aside from this specific legal context, the term in Canada is outdated and may be considered offensive and
derogatory. For more information on terminology and definitions, see Indigenous Peoples: A Guide to Terminology.

Page 1 of 76
A number of planners and planning theorists advocate for a decolonization of planning, to actively redress
the colonial systems of dominance and work towards a model of planning that serves the community in
meaningful and culturally appropriate ways (Porter, 1973; Cook, 2013; Monk, 2006; Sandercock, 2004;
Jojola, 2008; Matunga, 2013; Prusak et al., 2015; McCartney et al., 2016; Erfan & Hemphill, 2013; Wilson,
2018).

Thus, in this thesis research project, I ask: moving forward, how can planning approaches to community
housing in northern Canada be decolonized? In order to help break down what a decolonization of planning
means in practice, I also ask: What are the roles and responsibilities of outsiders and locals in progressing
decolonization in planning? What might be the key dimensions or criteria for planning housing in this way?
What are the particular dimensions that should be taken into consideration for planning housing in the
north? And, how can these considerations be integrated into planning practice and community decision-
making processes?

While this thesis does not attempt to define what an ultimate decolonized planning approach should entail,
the findings may in some small ways offer insight and suggestions on how to decolonize planning
approaches, particularly in northern housing. In seeking to ‘open the door’ to an understanding of a
decolonized planning approach to housing planning and policy in rural, remote, and northern Indigenous
communities, I explore what alternative trajectories for planning might look like in two ways: first, by
speaking with housing experts and practitioners working across Canada and Alaska to learn about their
experiences, reflections, and lessons learned; and second, learning from action research and case study
research with the First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun (NND) in Yukon, Canada. To understand the broader
meanings and implications of the findings, and their contribution to a decolonization of planning practice,
I considered the data in terms of theory on decolonization and Indigenous planning, supplemented by
concepts in systems thinking, comprehensive planning, sustainability, and Arctic urbanism. In particular,
I used Laura Mannell, Frank Palermo, and Crispin Smith’s (2013) six principles of good planning for First
Nations communities both as a framework for examining the findings through a planning lens, as well as
to in turn contribute and augment these principles as they apply to northern housing.

1.1 Thesis Structure

While housing planning and policy are far from new topics in the field of planning research and theory,
they are lacking in their understanding of and sensitivity to Indigenous contexts, as well as rural, remote,
and northern geographies. Thus, I begin this thesis by presenting theory on Indigenous and decolonizing
planning, supplemented by concepts in Arctic urbanism, systems thinking, comprehensive planning, and
sustainability. In order to better understand the recent advancements in approaches to housing planning
and design by and with Indigenous communities, I then review salient literature on the housing crisis,
followed by academic and grey literature exploring diverse approaches in culturally appropriate and

Page 2 of 76
northern housing, planning, and design. I proceed to explain how I chose to approach this field
methodologically, in consideration of Indigenous research methodologies, reflective practice, and
approaches to engaging with experts and collaborating with NND. To understand and illustrate the context
of housing challenges and future directions in Canada, I then present a background and history of housing
in Indigenous communities and in the north. I follow this by presenting a historical, geographical, social,
and planning overview of NND, to provide myself and the reader a context for the community I understand
to be a case study in researching Indigenous and decolonized planning approaches in the north.

With an established theoretical approach, understanding of the broader planning conversations around
Indigenous and decolonized housing and planning, methodology for gathering research in this field, and
armed with a background knowledge of the context of housing in Indigenous communities across Canada
and NND more specifically, I proceed to present the findings of analysed data. In an analytical framework
informed by Mannell et al.’s (2013) principles of good planning, here I put my interview data into dialogue
with theoretical understandings and tangible community realities and objectives shared by NND, with the
aim of gaining insight into what decolonized housing planning practices mean and look like in practice. I
then discuss how my findings contribute to the principles of good planning, and help progress an
understanding of a decolonization of planning practice, in northern housing but also more generally.
Finally, I conclude by summarizing what my thesis may contribute to the debates and speculations around
what a reclaiming or “decolonization” of planning looks like in practice, and I offer some suggestions on
areas of future research.

2 Theory
2.1 Theoretical Framework
Mannell et al. (2013) argue strongly that there is an urgent need for planning in every Indigenous
community. Thus, in endeavoring to conceptualize and contribute to better understandings of planning
practice around housing in the context of northern First Nations communities, I have drawn from theory
decolonizing and Indigenous planning. Given Indigenous and decolonizing planning theory’s emphasis on
sensitivity to place, I have brought in theory on Arctic urbanism to enhance an understanding in a northern
context. Furthermore, Indigenous and decolonizing planning theory seeks to understand the connections
and relationality between different parts in a holistic way, and thus I considered systems thinking, including
notions of comprehensive planning and sustainable development.

2.2 Decolonizing and Indigenous Planning

The most common complaint about planning is that its efforts, cumulating in strategies, plans, and reports,
often end up on shelves collecting dust, with no real impact on the community (Mannell et al., 2013).

Page 3 of 76
However, planning has also shown that it can be detrimental and destructive for Indigenous communities.
According to Erfan and Hemphill (2013), “what most planners were not taught in school is that planning
has been an apparatus of colonization in Canada” (p.18). The public, as well as planners themselves, have
become increasingly aware of the potential for plans to either fail to solve problems, or create problems
worse than those they had been designed to solve (Schön, 1983). Libby Porter (2010) further argues that if
land was fundamental for the success of colonization in creating new territories through securing imperial
state rule and generating economic growth, then land use planning was the principal instrument for that
control. In the context of settler states, including Canada, this means that planning has been, and remains
to be, integrally involved in dispossession through locally specific colonizing processes (ibid). Cook (2008)
explains that this largely due to the fact that for many decades, planning for Indigenous communities has
been controlled by federal agencies as well as external and non-Indigenous engineers and planners. Jojola
(2008) adds that these external practitioners subsumed local voices and largely used approaches to
community development that were more attuned to mainstream urban environments.

This “state” or “expert” driven planning model continues to have mixed results and consequences for
communities (Cook, 2008). Housing too has been a significant site where colonization policies of civilizing
and assimilating Indigenous peoples played out (Monk, 2006). The imposition of housing programs and
policies served to fix people on the land in particular ways, creating economic subjects of the Indigenous
inhabitants and the home itself representing a new economic relationship with the land, as a single-family
unit on an individual allotment. These processes altered how families lived together, how communities
organized themselves, and how decisions impacting those communities were made (ibid). Given the
continued impacts of colonialism and politically lingering colonial mentality and governmentality,
Sandercock (2004) argues that it makes sense to talk about planning in the context of an unresolved post-
colonial condition. Indeed, Monk (2006) contends that reframing the problem as one of governance and
colonialism pursued and resisted through housing opens up possibilities and spaces for action, by putting
focus and value on what Indigenous communities themselves are doing to address housing and other
challenges.

Mannell et al. (2013) argue that “planning” for Indigenous communities is neither a new idea nor an
imported one. As a future-seeking endeavour, Walker and Matunga (2013) explain that “planning” is not
owned by the West, nor by its theorists and practitioners. Prior to colonization, Indigenous societies were
actively engaged in planning their communities according to their own traditions and sets of practices
(Jojola, 2008; Matunga, 2013). In the contemporary, Indigenous communities are challenging Canada’s
colonial past, reclaiming systems of knowledge in order to advance self-reliant communities and
sovereignty (Cook, 2013). They are actively undertaking comprehensive community planning and
development initiatives to address their challenges, through preserving languages and cultural practices,

Page 4 of 76
rebuilding governance and education systems, investing in community health and wellness, enacting
sustainable resource management, building self-reliant economies, and working to improve housing and
infrastructure (ibid). These planning and development ventures necessarily implicate the history, theory,
education, and practice of Western and Indigenous planning, causing Cook (2013) to question the role of
planning moving forward, including: How can planners redress a history of Western planning practice and
transition to a planning culture that is more culturally respectful and responsive? How can planning grow
beyond a linear system of rationalization embedded in Western values and thinking? (ibid).

Seeking to answer such questions, “Indigenous Planning” is emerging as a paradigm in the context of
contemporary planning that reclaims historic, contemporary, and future-oriented planning approaches of
Indigenous communities, across Western settler states (Prusak, Walker, & Innes, 2015). Porter (2010) asks:
“If planning is a producer of place, what does it claim is worth producing and how is this particular view
of the world continually mediated and reconstituted?” (p.16). Given that planning, as a dominating cultural
practice, has marginalizing and oppressing effects on upon the rights and lives of Indigenous peoples, it is
crucial that planning research then look for ways to unsettle and undo this dominance (ibid). Indigenous
planning theory uncovers mechanisms for altering this dynamic of asymmetrical power relations and
marginalization of alternate worldviews, focusing on the emancipatory potential of planning and its ability
to be an instrument of hope (McCartney et al., 2016). Jojola (2008) describes Indigenous planning as both
an approach to community planning and an ideological movement, and what distinguishes it from
mainstream planning is “its reformulation of planning approaches in a manner that incorporates traditional
knowledge and cultural identity” (p.42). Mutunga (2013) recognizes that the central tenets of Indigenous
planning are community/kinship and place based. Literature of Indigenous planning is complemented by a
larger body of work on “planning with Indigenous communities”, and combined this scholarship seeks to
advance an understanding of how to more effectively undertake community planning in and by Indigenous
communities (ibid).

Also emergent in discussions of planning’s relationship with communities are the concepts of
“Indigenizing” and “decolonizing” planning (Erfan & Hemphill, 2013). Each community has unique
traditions and relationships, and thus doing Indigenous planning means to be in tune with these and
sensitive to the unique local context (ibid). Mutunga (2013) agrees that “to do Indigenous planning requires
that it be done in/at the place with the people of that place” (p.5). The role of Indigenizing the process
should be in the prerogative of the local community planner (Erfan & Hemphill, 2013). In turn, the role of
the non-Indigenous or external planner, should be as an active ally by decolonizing the process, reversing
the power relations so that the planner is fully in service of the local community. This might mean:
challenging their own tendencies to talk too much, or to privilege a bureaucratic or reporting requirement
over what is culturally appropriate or relevant at a given stage in the planning process (ibid).

Page 5 of 76
This so-called “decolonization” of the role that planning plays in either perpetuating or breaking unequal
power dynamics requires a critical reflexivity on the part of the planner, argues McCartney et al. (2016).
This ‘dark side’ of planning, or its entanglement in practices of social control and mobilisation of political
rationality, can be reduced if their positionality is reflexively acknowledged (Huxley, 2002). Indeed, if
planners seek to understand how power relations work to shape the planning process, they may be more
equipped to improve the quality of their analysis and empower citizen and community action (Forester,
1982).

Mannell et al. (2013) present two fundamental ideas about planning with Indigenous communities that
apply to the process, product, and the ensuing action: planning must be community-based and
comprehensive. They propose six major principles for conducting good community-based and
comprehensive planning in First Nations communities: engage a broad cross-section of the community;
engage youth; value local and traditional knowledge as well as outside ideas; reflect on the past and present;
connect the physical and social; and establish a united direction for the future. In terms of the community-
based approach to planning, Mannell et al. also outline six elements that refer to the benefits of genuine
community involvement, as well as provide the basis for measuring whether or not a plan is actually
community based. These elements expect that a community-based planning process? will: establish
awareness, build community, develop capacity, raise expectations, voice opinions, and nurture creativity
(ibid). You could ask if Mannell’s principles are sufficient to decolonize planning and if these principles
resonate with what experts and locals point to as central for indigenous planning.

2.3 Arctic Urbanism

Arctic landscapes and communities appear to be changing faster than anywhere else (Larsen &
Hemmersam, 2018). In addition to the challenges related to a shifting climate and low ecological resilience,
Arctic populations are also finding themselves in an emerging geopolitical centre, as the region is being
increasingly becoming sites of resource extraction speculation and global flows of capital, trade, and people
(ibid). This rapid development, driven by resource expansion and high birth rates, is imposing intense and
urgent pressures on regional and city planning (Sheppard & White, 2017). Cities and settlement across the
Canadian Arctic thus continue to grow, but often with little reflection or debate on what spatial or social
forms this might take (ibid).

The nature of human infiltration, or settler encroachment, throughout the 20th century in the Canadian
north engendered an Arctic urbanism that was driven by externalities: climactic and technical challenges,
economic or military impetus, and the imperative for efficiency (Sheppard & White, 2017). In this stage
of rapid community development, there was not enough time to develop the gradual exchange between a
person and their environment so as to create a local culture or style, and thus a contemporary northern
vernacular has failed to materialize that coherently responds to the unique climactic, logistic, and socio-

Page 6 of 76
cultural realities of the diverse peoples who live there (ibid). While the move towards self-determination
has led to an increased desire by Indigenous peoples to develop building forms that both in their function
and aesthetic embody their traditional cultural values, this work has been for the most part limited to the
community level (community centres, schools, cultural infrastructure) and there has been comparably
limited progress towards developing examples of culturally appropriate housing (Semple, 2013).

According to Larsen and Hemmersam (2018), it is important to advance an understanding of the Arctic not
only as diverse, conflictual, and narrated, but also as continually evolving and speculative landscapes that
will emerge in multiple forms. In northern communities that have large Indigenous populations, the failures
of design of buildings and communities appear to have occurred not only because they did not address the
traditional cultures of the north, but also because they have not been adaptive and creative about what an
emerging northern culture might be (Semple, 2013). Without returning completely to pre-settlement ways
of life, Sheppard and White (2017) contend that the 21st century presents an opportunity to engage such
future thinking, including addressing the shifting intersections between traditional and contemporary
northern life. The hybrids and negotiations between traditional and contemporary life combined with future
thinking and planning offer a powerful landscape of potential for the future of the north and its people.
Sheppard and White (2017) explain: “By fostering respect for evolving cultures and their needs, urban
design and planning could become catalysts of empowerment, consolidation, and reinforcement” (p.40).

In order to conceptualize and illustrate some of the possible approaches to developing culturally appropriate
and sustainable housing and planning in the north, I elaborate on elements of systems thinking,
comprehensive planning, sustainable development, decolonizing planning, and Indigenous planning.

2.4 Housing as a System

In theoretically characterizing the "problems” of housing, it becomes evident that they cannot be considered
in isolation. Schön (1983) contends that planners (or any other managerial profession) do not deal with
problems that are independent of each other, but rather with dynamic situations that consist of complex
systems of changing problems that interact with one another. Gibb and Marsh (2019) advocate for taking
a systems thinking approach to housing policy and strategy development. Systems thinking focuses on the
interrelationships between the elements of a system, working across multiple perspectives and contending
with the reality of different interests across the system (ibid).

Challenges with housing arise because the housing sector is a complex system, explain Gibb and Marsh
(2019). Such complexity creates wicked problems that are difficult to characterize and respond to, which
further complicates mobilizing knowledge and subsequent action. The complexity also stems from the fact
that housing is interdependent with other major systems, such as transportation, education, and social
security (ibid). In fact, Wishart (2013) argues that there are few places where the crucial interdependencies

Page 7 of 76
between home, hearth, and household are as apparent as in the circumpolar north – and indeed they are
vital for human habitation in this harsh region.

Andersen (2013) contends that dwellings should not be considered as unitary structures, but rather
as ‘systems of settings’. That is to say, an alternative to the hegemonic paradigm might include an
understanding of ‘a home’ as an entire cultural landscape, where activities are dispersed across several
geographic settings rather than confined under a roof divided functionally specific rooms. Andersen further
explains: “If colonial enumerators are needed to break people into bounded households in order to lend a
sense of focus to their analysis of human relationships, it seems that many contemporary researchers are
equally inclined to see social activity as entangled within walls, roofs and thresholds” (p.266). Knotsch
and Kinnon (2011) explain that housing affects every aspect of life, from and school to family and social
relationships, which in turn impacts the individual’s mental, spiritual, and physical health and wellbeing.
This indicates that housing then ought not to be considered as a stand-alone sector or topic. Monk (2006)
further illustrates housing’s interconnectedness and complexity:

“Housing is a nexus connecting inhabitants to social, environmental, economic, political sites. It is

a site of personal space and of community interactions; it embodies economic concerns associated
with affordability and construction; it is a site of decision-making and authority legitimating
between occupants; and it is the site of one of the most basic human-environment interactions.”
(p.112)

These arguments may be summarized by Andy Moorhouse, former President of the Kativik Municipal
Housing Bureau: “Housing is not the only issue, but all issues relate to housing” (Knotsch & Kinnon, 2011,
p.1). Wilson (2018) contends that the housing crisis is not a building problem, but a systems problem –
thus any solution must address the whole system within which housing is embedded, from education to
social welfare to food sovereignty. . The house is a powerful cultural tool and must be considered as part
of a complex network of community assets (McCartney, 2016). Housing systems should not be reduced to
merely the creation of shelter or isolated dwelling units (ibid). Thus, just building a bunch of houses is not
going to solve the housing crisis, and in fact it can actually contribute to it if it perpetuates the same models
that currently exist (Wilson, 2018).

There is not, however, one single approach to housing systems and systems thinking, rather systems
analysis encompasses multiple approaches that are applied in diverse fields (Gibb & Marsh, 2019). Rather,
they argue that the utility or value of systems thinking comes from adopting a systems perspective more
generally: “If we take a systems perspective to our diagnosis of empirical, policy and practice questions,
then we possess tools and modes of thinking that will encourage better analysis and might help avoid errors
that arise from siloed thinking and too much focus on individual elements or nodes rather than the
interconnectedness and emergent properties of the system” (Gibb & Marsh, 2019, p.17). The following

Page 8 of 76
sections outline a couple of different approaches that have adopted the philosophy of thinking in systems
in the realm of planning and housing.

2.4.1 Comprehensive Planning

The research of Mannell at al (2013) describes an evolving planning model and approach to practice, based
on planning efforts in First Nations communities across Canada. Planning is an opportunity to build and
positively transform a community, but in order for it to reach its potential and affect real change, there are
a few essential elements that must be included in the process, product, and ensuing action. They argue that
for planning to be successful in First Nations communities, it must be community-based, comprehensive,
and lead to action (ibid). They explain that “comprehensive planning is not just about considering all
sectors in a community. More fundamentally it is about seeing the community as a whole, across
departments, agencies, budgets, and personalities. It is health, recreation, education, environment,
economics, infrastructure – all at the same time” (Mannell et al., 2013, p.113).

This means that it cannot be a side-project, or belong to one department; rather, a comprehensive approach
must see a community whole, identify gaps, consider local and global contexts, and think long-term but
lead to immediate action. While there is no shortage of planning activities that take place within First
Nation communities – from health plans to land use plans to economic development plans - what is often
missing is the connection between these initiatives. Approaching planning comprehensively means that
these connections are identified, thus enabling coordination and collaboration across departmental
boundaries (Mannell et al., 2013). Pulla (2012) agrees that engagement efforts should focus on instilling a
“process approach”, bringing in more people to more parts of the process to help ensure that all parts can
come together as best as possible. Mannell et al. (2013) call for planning praxis in the context of Indigenous
communities to be comprehensive, working across and between different sectors and aspects of community
life, whether they be cultural, social, economic, environmental, or spiritual. There is thus a need for
planning approaches that can comprehend, bring together, and move forward these many dimensions in a
system.

2.4.2 Sustainability
Harivel and Anderson (2008) contend that sustainability principles provide the context for and are at the
heart of comprehensive community planning. Sustainability is also a potentially useful lens for
conceptualizing the multi-dimensional nature of housing, and in understanding the breadth and
interrelatedness of those dimensions, more comprehensive planning might be enabled. In general,
sustainable housing entails the provision of healthy, affordable, flexible, and environmentally conscious
housing that is appropriate both for the occupants and the climate in which it is constructed (Semple, 2013).
For Indigenous communities across Canada, there is an increasing recognition that sustainability also

Page 9 of 76
includes the housing design that is culturally appropriate to the needs of the users (ibid). The multi-faceted
nature of both sustainable development as a concept and of housing by nature, and the reality that housing
is integral to urban sustainability, have underpinned the need to evaluate and plan housing development
from the perspective of sustainability (Vehbi et al., 2010). Current research on housing sustainability covers
broad spectra of environmental (ex. energy efficiency, water consumption), social (ex. livable
communities, occupant health), and economic (ex. affordability, durability, cost-benefit analysis) concerns
(Nicol & Knoepfel, 2014). Vehbi et al. (2010) also argue that sustainable housing should not just be merely
about meeting basic needs, but should also improve livability and quality of life in terms of those
environmental, social, and economic aspects. Furthermore, sustainability objectives in housing can only be
achieved if they are taken into account at all stages of the process, from the construction to long-term use
to eventual disposal and recycling (ibid).

Though providing shelter is the main function of housing within a complex system, it also has important
implications for many other domains, including energy supply, water provision, investment, and human
mobility (Nicol & Knoepfel, 2014). In response to emerging environmental and social issues, it is tempting
to focus only on the dwelling and attempt to increase its durability and performance; however it is crucial
to recognize that dwelling are built within settlements, and the spatial arrangement of those settlements has
significant impacts both directly on the environment and indirectly with costs to the household (Saville-
Smith et al., 2005). The housing environment then should be safeguarded from deteriorating such that it
diminishes the ability of future generations to meet their housing needs (Vehbi et al., 2010). This notion is
echoed by Jojola (2008) who contends that a fundamental facet of Indigenous planning approaches is an
understanding of the ability of land to sustainably maintain a population into the future.

3 Literature Review
3.1 Understanding the Housing Crisis
Across the Canadian north, the housing needs of residents is one of the most significant and pressing issues
facing communities today (Semple, 2013). A number of studies have drawn attention to the significance
of housing issues of Indigenous peoples in Canada, including in the north. Knotcsh and Kinnon (2011)
note that repeated throughout reports written on northern housing is the lack of adequate housing and
overcrowding, and the social challenges that accompany these. However, Shelagh McCartney, Jeffrey
Herskovits, and Lara Hintelmann (2020) argue that even the way these housing issues are measured - often
through universal metrics of adequacy, affordability, and suitability - is problematic, because it misses the
multiple dimensions and causes of issues such as overcrowding.

The extensive work of Julia Christensen (2012, 2013, 2016; Christensen et al., 2017) explores the
dimensions of socio-cultural change that have impacted Indigenous peoples’ sense of home and belonging

Page 10 of 76
in the north, and the ways in which uneven and fragmented social, institutional, and economic geographies
result in vulnerabilities to homelessness. The work of Marie Baron, Mylène Riva, and Christopher Fletcher
(2019) on the social determinants of health associated with healthy ageing amongst Inuit communities
points to housing overcrowding as being directly associated with poorer respiratory health, poorer well-
being, and chronic stress. A doctoral dissertation by Sylvia Olsen (2016) provides a history of on-reserve
housing programs since 1930, uncovering the ways in which the federal government agencies responsible
for Indigenous peoples created and oversaw a failed housing system on reserves across the country, and
whose decisions were responsible for impoverishing Indigenous peoples and communities. A report by the
Canadian Polar Commission (2014) presents housing-related research advances, knowledge gaps and
research opportunities across the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nunavik, and Nunatsiavut. A
research study by Marleen Morris, Julia Good, and Greg Halseth (2020) finds that the majority of housing
stock in non-metropolitan communities across Canada’s provinces is in a poor state and thus is a key
constraint on community wellbeing and economic development.

3.2 Culturally Appropriate Housing and Planning

3.2.1 International
In the context of the United States, a report by Blosser et al. (2014) as part of the Sustainable Native
Communities Collaborative highlights 17 case study projects that exemplify an emerging transformation
in tribal housing, noting that tribal housing projects are increasingly connected to heritage, culture, and
nature. In Australia, a study by John Minnery, Michelle Manicaros, and Michael Lindfield (2000) develops
a model of best practice to evaluate remote area Indigenous housing provision, and determine that some
elements of best practice include a flexible approach to funding, addressing the constraints of land title,
skill transfer and capacity building, linking local needs with what companies develop and supply, and
enabling effective maintenance. A design framework was developed by researchers at Australian Housing
and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) in collaboration with three remote Indigenous communities,
ultimately recommending six integrated dimensions: culturally responsive design, eco-efficiency, healthy
living practices, housing-related training and employment, life-cycle costing of projects, and innovation in
procurement, ownership and construction systems (Fien et al., 2008).

In New Zealand, a number of resources have been developed to conceptualize what Māori planning and
housing principles might look like, and support the development of culturally-appropriate developments.
Ki te Hau Kāinga is a design guide that specifically addresses Māori housing solutions (Hoskins, Te Nana,
Rhodes, Guy, & Sage, 2002). The principle question behind the development of the design guide was: in
considering that state-imposed housing has fallen well short of ideal housing solutions for Māori, what
then constitutes an appropriate Māori housing solution? (ibid). A study by Jade Kake and Jacqueline Paul

Page 11 of 76
(2018) builds on this by evaluating the spatial application of Māori design principles such as Te Aranga to
assess actual versus anticipated social outcomes, with an understanding that Māori design principles have
the potential to significantly impact future neighbourhood regeneration and housing developments.

3.2.2 Canada
Designing and building homes that better meet the needs of Indigenous communities is a growing area
of interest and research (BC Housing, 2018). Indeed, numerous studies and projects have been
undertaken in recent years to this effect. Below I draw attention to the most relevant.

Early studies of this subject carried out by various federal government agencies focused predominately
on Inuit communities, and demonstrated that Euro-Canadian housing models do not meet the needs of
Inuit families (Semple, 2013). Peter Dawson (1995, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2008) has undertaken a number
of studies to this effect, echoing the findings of other northern research by identifying that Euro-
Canadian forms of housing are incompatible with the social structure of Inuit families, and
recommending that designing houses to meet the cultural needs of their occupants is essential for
lowering maintenance costs and improving standards of living.

From a review of literature, numerous research projects have drawn attention to the need for housing,
in design, policy, and assessment, to articulate the culture, needs, and values of the community in order
to break from colonial approaches and progress wellbeing (Larcombe et al., 2020; McCartney,
Herskovitz, & Hintelmann, 2020; Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources, 2004; Deane &
Smoke, 2010). Furthermore, a number of recent studies and reports in British Columbia have
identified considerations that decision-makers should take into account when planning for housing, in
particular that housing approaches need to encompass multiple objectives and social, cultural,
economic, and cultural factors in parallel (Butler et al., 2017; BC Housing, 2018; Coastal First Nations
Great Bear Initiative, 2017; Hildebrand, 2020; Fineblit, 2015; Taylor, 2011). Recent years have also seen
a number of community-based design and prototype projects undertaken, endeavoring to realize
cultural-appropriateness within architectural design and built form. (MacTavish et al, 2012; Jacobs,
2002; EcoTrust Canada, 2015; Wong 2011a, 2011b)

3.3 Northern Housing and Planning

Recent studies and projects have also examined innovation in housing in the north, and made
recommendations for improving housing policy, programs, and strategy. Drawing from four successful
and innovative case studies of northern housing initiatives, Pulla’s (2012) report suggests that effective
northern housing strategies partnerships, programs, and policies that support and involve northerners, are
respectful of and relevant to northern lifestyles, traditions, and cultures, and are consistent with the long-

Page 12 of 76
term goals of sustainable development. A paper by Erik Borre Nilsen (2005) argues that though the
emerging movement towards more community-based and collaborative planning approaches in northern
Canada is a positive direction, it requires a more precise focus on place conceptualization to ensure
sensitivity to context in meaningfully and appropriately addressed. Under direction from the Nunatsiavut
Government, Goldhar, Bell, and Sheldon (2013) undertook an extensive literature review to develop an
understanding of the risks posed by a changing climate, and to review best practices in sustainable, climate
change adapted, housing design and community planning in the Canadian north. A doctoral dissertation by
Susane Havelka (2018) explores the rise in a self-built hybrid vernacular amongst Inuit at Clyde River,
Nunavut, creating mobile structures that incorporate both local and imported technologies and materials,
in response to ill-suited government-imposed housing. A major multi-year pan-northern research project
currently underway is “At Home in the North”, comprising an interdisciplinary partnership that endeavours
to understand the meaning of home across northern community and regional contexts, advance a
contextually- and culturally-relevant understanding of the northern housing continuum (At Home in the
North, 2021).

A number of recent events were also convened to discuss challenges in housing across the north, and
develop recommendations for practices and policy, including the 2019 Northern Policy Hackathon in
Inuvik, northwest Territories, and the Northern Housing Forum hosted by Polar Knowledge Canada in
2018 in Yellowknife, northwest Territories. The aims of these events were to develop innovative
recommendations for provincial, territorial, and federal policies to ensure that housing meets the needs of
northerners in the coming decades, and share best practices and enhance collaboration on holistic
approaches to northern housing challenges ("Northern Policy Hackathon", 2019a, 2019b; Stratos Inc.,
2018; “Northern Housing Forum”, 2019). Additionally, over the past several years a number of projects
have been designed and implemented that attempt to address the design of culturally appropriate housing
for northern and remote Indigenous communities (Semple, 2013). These projects aimed to both improve
energy performance of northern housing and develop housing designs that were more responsive to the
cultural needs of northern Indigenous communities (see CMHC, 2007; CCHRC, 2010; Atkins, 2018a,
2018b).

Despite these reports, observations, and promising examples, Semple (2013) argues that on a broader scale
there has been relatively little progress in planning and building for unique housing needs of northern
peoples in terms of culturally appropriate housing, as evidenced in the ways that the same ill-suited models
continue to be produced.

Page 13 of 76
4 Methodology
4.1 Reflective Practice and Learning from Others
In an attempt to explore and contribute to the evolving approaches to planning practice in First Nations
communities, this research has undertaken a “reflective practice” as a method for learning from the work
that others have done in the field. The fundamental aim of action research is to improve practice rather than
improve knowledge, and as a result has been adopted by a number of professions as a means of enhancing
professional development through reflection and research (Townsend, 2014). This establishes a close
relationship between action research and Schön’s concept of reflective practice (ibid). This approach sees
practice, reflection, and learning as a continuous interdependent loop (Schön, 1983). This means than in
their work, the practitioner allows themselves to be surprised, puzzled, or confused about an uncertain
situation, then reflects on the phenomena and on their prior understandings of theory and technique that
informed their behaviour, and then carries out an experiment which serves to generate both new
understandings and a change in the situation (ibid). Mannell et al. (2013) explain that “community planning
relies on work in the field; ideas, methods, and tools are tested and refined based on experience on the
ground. These refinements are then incorporated into practice through plan development and plan
implementation.” (p.114). The cyclical approach to learning, practice, and reflection can lead to new
discoveries and improvements (ibid).

Some theorists have suggested that there are two forms of research on practice: one conducted by
practitioners themselves with the aim of enhancing professional development; and another conducted by
professional researchers in order to produce rigorous generalizable ‘findings’ about practice (see Hammer
& Schifter, 2001; Hiebert, Gallimore & Stigler, 2002). As neither professional researcher nor working
practitioner, I aim to take a reflective practice and action research approach that perhaps offers some insight
on both forms. Thus, I apply this approach to the practices of others: gathering the challenges and lessons-
learned from practitioners and the case study of NND, and extending them to the broader implications for
planning practice in northern Indigenous contexts. All of the participants recruited for interview undertook
some form of reflection-in-practice or action research in their own right, questioning the taken-for-
grantedness of different challenges within the fields of housing and community planning, and
experimenting to develop action-oriented new solutions or understandings. It is for this that a reflective
practice approach is used, to bring in the reflections, learnings, and approaches of diverse professionals
and experts who have worked in the field into dialogue with one another and with theory, with the aim of
contributing to the ever-emerging understandings of Indigenous community planning in rural and northern
Canada.

Page 14 of 76
4.2 Consideration of Indigenous Research Methodologies
Shawn Wilson’s (2008) book Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods describes a research
paradigm that is shared by Indigenous scholars in Canada and Australia, and shows how it might be put
into practice. Wilson explains that relationality is a critical component of Indigenous ontology and
epistemology, including relationships with the environment and land. The author goes on to discuss that
‘Indigenous’ can be understood as being born of its context and environment, and thus to create something
from an Indigenous perspective means creating it from the environment and land that it sits on (Wilson,
2008, p.88).

Building off this, Wilson (2008) also contends that in an Indigenous research paradigm is the recognition
that everything is connected to everything else, and that an important aspect of research is to
bring awareness to and increase those connections and build relationships. Those relationships also include
the environment, land, and ancestors. The author also upholds that the elements of an Indigenous research
paradigm can be seen as a circle, where no part can be compartmentalized or separate from any other part,
including the researcher themselves. The circle is found throughout Indigenous societies, their architecture,
and governance – like a foundational platform or cultural framework: structurally egalitarian, relational,
and supporting inclusion and wholeness. Relating this foundational concept to research, the author then
discusses how relationality can be put into practice through the choice of research topics, methods of data
collection and analysis, and form of presentation (ibid).

In consideration of Indigenous research methodologies, I sought out theory that reflected elements of
relationality and sensitivity to place and context. I discussed in the theoretical section that housing is not
a stand-alone sector, but rather integrated within complex systems at many scales. Thus, an attempt at
decolonization and integration of an Indigenous research paradigm might consider that to understand sense
of home requires looking beyond the activities and behaviours contained within a specific dwelling. This
understanding of relationality within an Indigenous research paradigm also calls for research approaches
that can consider many factors in tandem, as well as the connections between them, as with systems-
thinking and comprehensive planning. Furthermore, the notion of ‘relational accountability’ also stood out
as an important principle for both conceptualizing and conducting research with Indigenous communities.
For Wilson (2008), this principle “means that the methodology needs to be based in a community context
(be relational) and has to demonstrate respect, reciprocity and responsibility (be accountable as it is put
into action)” (p.99).

It should be noted that I am not in a position to carry through a fully-fledged Indigenous research approach,
or to undertake ‘research as ceremony’, as Wilson’s (2008) paradigm upholds. Rather the above is to
acknowledge an awareness of the ideals of the research paradigm. Learning from the teachings of
Indigenous research methodologies helped guide me in building and managing a research relationship with

Page 15 of 76
NND. I had the great privilege to learn from several staff members in the community’s government and
development corporation who shared their experiences and hopes for their community with me, and in
return I endeavoured to have a reciprocal relationship by contributing in a research capacity where they
identified there was a need.

4.3 Researcher Positionality

It is important to recognize that as a researcher, my positionality not only shapes my own research, but also
influences how I interpret and understand the research, opinions, or experiences of others. Just as
McCartney et al. (2016) and Huxley (2002) call for an ongoing reflexivity on the part of the planner if they
are to break from colonial planning systems and systems of dominance and social control that they
perpetuate, then so too in planning research there is a need for the research to examine oneself and the
research relationship (Hsiung, 2010). In conducting research on a subject that impacts Indigenous people,
I recognize the importance of acknowledging my position in relation to this work. I am a white settler and
conducted this research while living on Treaty 8 territory, on the traditional lands of the Dane-zaa people
in what is now known as northeast British Columbia, Canada. While researching housing and asking people
about housing in their own communities or communities they worked in, I recognize that my conception
of housing is based in my own privileged experience of housing as something safe and comfortable, as a
home. I have past experience working in local government and private sector consulting, and have
witnessed first-hand the unintended harms that can result from poor quality planning. The driver for
undertaking research on this subject was a genuine interest in and passion for housing, infrastructure, and
wellbeing in Indigenous communities, and a desire to improve my chosen field of practice of community
planning.

4.4 Research with Experts

In my position as a masters’ student undertaking research, I understood ‘experts’ as being people who had
experience on-the-ground in and with Indigenous communities. Though some of the participants I
interviewed or had informal discussions with had extensive education in the field of planning, institutional
qualification or credentials was not the determining factor in determining if someone counted as an ‘expert’
for my research purposes. People are experts in their own experiences (Wilde, 2020). Because I was asking
participants to reflect on the challenges, successes, and lessons learned through their work, experience was
the essential grounding for expertise. While some might consider someone with a masters’ level education
an expert in their particular field, I considered the people I spoke with both at NND and practitioners across
Canada, as the ‘experts’, and their knowledge as ‘expert knowledge’. This differentiated them from me, a
non-expert by this definition.

Page 16 of 76
4.4.1 Qualitative Research interviews
In order to realize a Reflective Practice approach and learn from the practices of others, the qualitative
research interview was selected as a research method to gain insight from the perspectives of the
practitioners into planning in the context of rural, remote, and northern Indigenous communities. The
qualitative interview focuses on informants’ opinions and views on the world, and the aim of the research
interview is to produce and expand knowledge about a specific topic (Kvale, 2007). The style of the
interview was semi-structured, where I developed an interview guide with a standard set of questions, but
opened up space for the participants to describe their experiences, thoughts, and opinions in their own
words. Thus, even though the interview is flexible, it is still planned and carried out with a particular
purpose (ibid). The interview guide can be found in Appendix 1.

The purpose of the interviews was to gain a deeper understanding and bring together the insights of experts
from diverse backgrounds who have worked with different Indigenous communities across Canada and
Alaska, USA, with the aim of uncovering and comparing the emerging considerations and dimensions of
housing and community planning.

Phillips & Johns (2012) explain that when seeking critical insight and honest opinions from interviewees,
the interview location is an important facilitator. However, because of the COVID-19 global pandemic, in-
person interviews were not possible. Instead, I undertook all interviews over online videoconferencing
software, including Zoom and Microsoft Teams. This was both an advantage and a disadvantage. On one
hand, it enabled me to access and speak with experts from across the country and north American Arctic;
however, it also made a natural flow of conversation more challenging, because of intermittent connectivity
issues and the awkwardness of speaking to a screen rather than a person. Kvale (2007) explains that the
semi-structured interview is a conversation, which can be open or closed, and Rapley (2001) adds that
interviews are inherently sites of social interaction, where the process of question and answering is
designed to be relatively fluid and dynamic. In this way, the data obtained are highly dependent on and
emerge from the specific local interactional context that is produced through the conversation and identity
work between the interviewer and interviewee (Rapley, 2001). Thus, while the video-conferenced
interviews enabled access to a greater geographic breadth of participants, it also potentially affected the
nature of data obtained.

4.4.2 Ethics and Consent

The interviews were conducted with a formal consent process, which was approved by the Norsk Senter
for Forskningsdata (NSD). The participants were provided with a consent form in advance of the interview
which described the purpose of the project, what participation in the interviews would involve, how their
data would be used and stored, and their rights. By signing the consent form, participants agreed to
participate in the interview and have their data processed until the end of the project. The participants could

Page 17 of 76
 also optionally choose to agree to have the interview recorded, to request to review any text that contained
their name or quotes attributed to them prior to publication, and to have recognisable information about
themselves published in the thesis (such as name, occupation, and location of previous or current work).
In order to securely handle and store sensitive information, such as the recordings of the interviews, the
data was anonymised and stored on a secure server. All participants agreed to be named within this thesis.

4.4.3 Interview Participants

Interview participants were recruited from within my own network, from recommendations and
suggestions of people within that network, as well as practitioners discovered through the literature review.
In total, six people agreed to participate in interviews, representing a geographic breadth and diversity in
professional experience working with housing and community planning. While all have different
backgrounds, geographies, and jobs, what was common amongst them was their commitment to continually
understanding and improving their chosen area of practice, which could be seen as a form of research in
action or reflective practice. The following table describes the interview participants.

Table 1 – Description of expert interview participants

Name Location of Work Experience and Expertise

Aaron Cooke Alaska, USA o Architect, project manager, and researcher at Cold Climate Housing Research
Centre (CCHRC)

Stacey Fritz Alaska, USA o Project Manager, Anthropologist, Communications coordinator at Cold
Climate Housing Research Centre (CCHRC)
o Formerly at Bureau of Land Management (USA federal agency), Arctic
District Office

Lynn Jacobs Quebec, Canada o Co-led Kanata Healthy Housing Project and Kanata Sustainable
Neighbourhood Project in Kahnawá:ke, Quebec
o Director of Environmental Protection, Mohawk Council of Kahnawá:ke

Nelson Lepine Yukon, Canada o 25+ years working in housing sector

o 11 years working with a Yukon First Nation government
o Technical advisor to regional Assembly of First Nations (AFN) in Yukon
o Chair of Grey Mountain Housing Society

Shelagh Ontario & o Director at Together Design Lab

McCartney Northwest o Licensed architect and urban planner
Territories, Canada o Associate professor at Ryerson University

Anthony British Columbia, o Director of Indigenous Home-Land Initiative, EcoTrust Canada

Persaud Canada

4.4.4 Interview Analysis

In order to prepare for a written analysis, I took inspiration from the meaning condensation method
articulated by Steinar Kvale (2007) as a way of organizing the data and engaging with it in attempt to

Page 18 of 76
interpret its themes and meanings. This method undertakes to organize, analyze, thematize and code the
data in a way that enables a deeper interpretation of the patterns and meanings. I adapted this method to
organize and compare the challenges, successes, and lessons learned shared by the practitioners
interviewed. After synthesizing all of the themes from the interviews together, I summarized and described
the main findings and brought them into dialogue with insights gained on the community of NND as well
as with theory on Arctic urbanism, systems thinking, and decolonial and Indigenous planning, in order to
extract meaning and understand both their broader and local implications. I elaborate on this in the Analysis
section of the thesis, but first I will present the methods for research with NND followed by in-depth
background on the community.

4.5 Research with Community

4.5.1 Participatory Action Research
In thinking about how to develop a research project with the First Nation of Na-cho Näk Dun, I was
interested in approaching the process as a reciprocal partnership rather than coming in with a pre-
established research project. Saija et al. (2017) understand action research as accepting the challenge to be
an internal part of a collective learning process, sharing without imposing one’s expertise. Kemmis,
McTaggart, and Nixon (2014) confirms that while action research takes many forms, what is common
amongst them is their rejection of conventional research approaches where the external expert enters a
setting to record and represent what is happening, and instead upholding that the participants own the way
of doing research.

One of the results of having a reciprocal partnership approach to research with NND was that it was not
necessarily possible nor desirable to impose my relatively rigid external parameters that came with writing
a “thesis project” on what made sense for the community. That is to say, while there was a shared interest
in expanding knowledge around housing in their community, NND has their own timelines, capacity
realities, changing needs, and developing projects that inform and drive how things are done. In the interest
of having a more meaningful participatory action research approach that fostered opportunities for
collective learning and reciprocity, the nature of my research involvement with NND was dynamic as
opportunities to learn and contribute arose and circumstances changed on the ground. Furthermore, the
research was also shaped by the continuation of the global COVID-19 pandemic not making it possible to
visit in-person or do any on-the-ground fieldwork. Thus, while there is no final cumulative product coming
specifically from research with NND, I had the opportunity to observe community decision-making and
government-to-government negotiation processes in real-time, learn about community nuances and
complexities from highly experienced and knowledgeable staff, and in return sharing my expertise in a
number of smaller different ways, such as developing a Request for Proposals evaluation matrix,

Page 19 of 76
developing qualitative housing survey questions, and investigating home-ownership programs in other
communities. Furthermore, action research is concerned with an inherently ‘practical’ form of research,
prioritizing beneficial change over knowledge production (Townsend, 2014). Thus, I endeavoured to
contribute with tools and resources that the NND government could use in their work and future projects,
and thus the knowledge and learnings but not the products of this collaboration are included within this
thesis.

Building off of social theorist Jürgen Habermas’ (1987, 1996) concepts of ‘communicative action’ and
‘communicative space’, Kemmis et al. (2014) further add that one of the most important things that happens
in critical participatory action research is simply that participants get together and talk about their work
and lives, exploring how things are going and whether there are things about their current situation that
might need reconsidering or changing. When approached in accordance with principles of communicative
action, such conversation opens up a particular kind of respectful ‘communicative space’ between
participants. Participation in this sense means striving for mutual understanding of one another’s points of
view and unforced consensus about what to do as concerns, understandings, and conditions are explored
(ibid).

It is for this that the relationship between myself and NND grew over the course of several months of
informal phone calls and conversations, in order to arrive collectively at an area of shared concern and
interest as the focus of research. However, this was an unforced process, and we called these conversations
“exploring research opportunities” to illustrate the spirit of the meetings. There was no formal agenda on
my part, rather using the conversations as a space to build better mutual understanding – on NND’s side,
to better understand what research capacity or expertise I could potentially offer; and on my side, better
understanding the context and priorities of the community, which ultimately served to inform my research
topic and process. This process eventually led to a more formal research collaboration agreement on the
topic of sustainable northern community housing and related planning considerations, policies, and
programs, but which still maintained large degree of variability and flexibility to adapt based on changing
circumstances. Approval to collaborate on research was done by a NND Chief and Council resolution, and
a subsequent research agreement was signed between myself and NND outlining principles for research
and conditions for access.

4.5.2 Case Study Methodology

In learning from NND through a process of action research, I also considered the community as a case
study for northern Indigenous communities. In particular, I found NND to be a case of the challenges
northern communities experienced with housing, including grappling with shortages and state-imposed and
southern-designed structures. However, NND is also a case of the transformative shift towards community-

Page 20 of 76
led and visionary planning. Yin (1981) explains that it is relevant to use a case study when “an empirical
inquiry must examine a contemporary phenomenon in its real-life context, especially when the boundaries
between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p.98). For instance, the housing crisis may be
seen as a phenomenon that broadly affects many Indigenous communities across Canada, however this
phenomenon plays out in specific places – to individuals and communities with distinct histories, cultures,
geographies, and governance structures. Additionally, the transformative shift in Indigenous communities
reclaiming planning practices to advance self-determination and community wellbeing may be a
phenomenon, but it is enacted very differently in different places according to their unique context. Thus,
in exploring the phenomena or ideas emerging in the field of Indigenous planning, particularly in northern
housing, I drew on conversations over the past ten months with NND staff who shared experiences,
knowledge, and aspirations. I also drew on community planning documents and reports shared by NND.
The aim of the case study approach was to relate my findings from literature and interviews to their
occurrence within a particular context.

5 Background
5.1 Canada’s North and Housing
In Canada, the north is the country’s fastest-growing region per-capita in the country (Sheppard & White,
2017). More than 115,000 people now live in the cities and settlements north of the 60th parallel in Canada,
and apart from the three capitals (Whitehorse pop. 25,000, Yellowknife pop. 19,000, Iqaluit pop. 7,000),
the territories still predominately consist of small, dispersed communities. This rapid development, driven
by resource expansion and high birth rates, is imposing intense and urgent pressures on regional and city
planning (ibid). There is a significant housing shortage in Canada’s north, which is put under pressure by
increasing demand for units from a growing population and economic development activity (Zanasi &
Pomeroy, 2013; Pulla, 2012). Severe climate, a short building season, the small and isolated
communities, climate change, and limited and ageing support infrastructure add additional dimensions of
complexity to the housing crisis (MacTavish et al., 2012; “Northern Housing Forum”, 2019). Construction,
maintenance, and operation of housing is also very expensive due to costs associated with construction
logistics, building materials, transportation, repairs and utilities, and seasonal energy
demands - thus affecting housing affordability (Canadian Polar Commission, 2014). northern housing
issues are further exacerbated by the effects of climate change, for instance with permafrost thaw causing
irreparable damage to housing and other community infrastructure (“Northern Housing Forum”, 2019).

These costs and shortages mean that the private market housing in the north is often competitive
and inflated, and furthermore tends to be concentrated in regional or urbanizing centres (Christensen, 2017;
Canadian Polar Commission, 2014). Despite the strong demand for shelter, many regions are unable to

Page 21 of 76
support a for-profit housing market due to small populations, high unemployment, and reliance on
government subsidies not allowing for economies of scale necessary for private sector investment in
affordable housing developments and associated cost-effective infrastructure (Pulla, 2012). Smaller
communities tend to be more reliant on publicly subsidized housing options, but in both small and large
communities the demand for public and subsidized housing far exceeds the supply (Christensen et al.,
2017). The combination of unaffordability on the private market and limited quantity of public housing
units has been identified as a critical factor in the incidence of homelessness in Canada’s north (Christensen
et al., 2017). While homelessness in the Canadian north is often understood as an issue faced by larger
urban centres, many northerners experiencing homelessness actually originate from small, rural settlement
communities (Christensen et al., 2017). A 2019 report revealed an overrepresentation of Indigenous
peoples experiencing homelessness, with 82% of homeless people in Whitehorse self-identifying as
Indigenous, despite being only 23% of the population (Brant & Irwin-Gibson, 2019; Yukon Bureau of
Statistics, 2016).

On top of the challenges of housing shortages and unaffordability, the quality of much of the currently
available housing stock is severely lacking. Penikett (2017) describes that for much of recent history, “the
north listened while the south talked” (p.5). Housing in Indigenous communities in the far north has been
dominated by designs, standards, and construction practices created for and utilized in urbanized ‘southern’
parts of Canada, in addition to having a design process that did not account for traditional knowledge or
decision-making processes (Semple, 2013). The government’s focus was based on quantitative service
delivery. The legacy of this approach perpetuates in an understanding that the success of a community
development project should be measured in housing units or community infrastructure built, rather than
according to quality or cultural relevance of space or northern urban form (ibid).

In Canada’s northern regions, a significant portion of the existing housing stock was designed by
outsiders according to southern and Eurocentric perspectives and standards, and as a result they often did
not meet the needs of northern residents, were ill-suited to climactic conditions, were not
properly weatherized, and were devoid of any cultural significance to what First Nations' have typically
placed in their homes (Canadian Polar Commission, 2014; Pulla, 2012; MacTavish et al., 2012). Indeed,
housing programs post-WWII did not attempt to integrate the unique elements of northern cultures or the
specific climactic demands of the northern environment (Pulla, 2012), and welfare-state planners had a
vested interest in delivering specific types of ‘cost-effective’ and centrally manufactured dwellings to their
northern clients, despite knowing very well that they did not always suit local needs (Dawson, 2008). Not
only did northern planning and urbanism fail to adapt to these realities, but it went so far as to be complicit
in suppressing Indigenous cultures and ways of life (Sheppard & White, 2017). Planning and housing

Page 22 of 76
delivery in the 20th Century was employed as a social engineering project, to bring the Indigenous peoples
of Canada’s north into the “modern world” and compel them to embrace southern practices (ibid).

5.2 Indigenous Communities and Housing

The housing landscape for Indigenous communities is shaped by inadequate and inconsistent funding,
restrictive government policies, lack of home ownership, and culturally inappropriate design (MacTavish
et al., 2012). This chronic housing need can be situated within the overall context of colonialism, where
Indigenous homemaking practices were disrupted through displacement from ancestral lands, family
separation, exclusionary socio-spatial structures across generations (Christensen, 2016). The provision of
modern housing for Indigenous peoples in Canada’s north was part of a broader strategy of centralizing,
settling, and cultural assimilation (Christensen, 2016). A standard housing regime that characterized
Indigenous peoples as homogenous and needing to be changed was rolled out throughout Canada,
imposing a rigid urban structure and housing forms that were entirely ignorant to local culture, ways of
living, and geography (McCartney, 2016). One of the underlying issues in the context of northern Canada
is that everything was built to be temporary (McCartney, 2017). Canadian state colonialism has for
generations made housing a site of conflict for Indigenous peoples across the country and forced
assimilation by stripping the physical environment that communities live in of all connections to culture
and place. The Indian Act was established and operated with the goal that Indigenous Peoples’ would
assimilate with the general population of Canada and settle in suburban and urban areas of the country
(ibid).

The federal, provincial, and territorial arrangements for the design and delivery of housing have evolved
over time (Pulla, 2012). The Indian Act was enacted shortly after Confederation 1866 with the aim of
absorbing and assimilating every single Indigenous person into the body politic of Canada (McCartney,
2016). After the Second World War, the Canadian Government was largely able to increase its presence in
the north through its housing and settlement policies – developed to apply social welfare to the territories
and integrate northern peoples. Since the mid 20th Century, the federal government played the predominant
role in developing, administering, and funding northern housing programs (Christensen et al., 2017). Prior
to self-governance which began in the mid 1990s for most Yukon First Nations, band councils were locked
into funding arrangements with the federal government (via the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC) and the Department of Indian Affairs 2) (MacTavish et al., 2012). With declining

2
The first Indian Department was first created by the British in 1755, and responsibility was transferred to the colonies upon confederation
in 1867. In 1966 this government arm became known as Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the “DIA”. From 2011-
2015 it was called Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) and then Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)
from 2015-2017. In 2017, INAC was split into two new departments, Crown-Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) and
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC).

Page 23 of 76
levels of funding and a dense web of restrictions on their use of capital and operating funds, communities
had difficulty asserting meaningful control over their housing programs (ibid).

A majority of housing provided in Indigenous communities was set up to be owned and managed by
the community government or band council. Without the responsibilities inherent in home ownership,
individuals living in band housing had neither the knowledge nor incentive to maintain their allocated
houses, which was compounded by a lack of sufficient funds for maintenance by the band council
(Mactavish et al., 2012). These factors in combination with overcrowding due to existing shortages had
led to accelerated deterioration and the need for more repairs and upgrades (Pulla, 2012; Christensen et al.,
2017). Compromised construction, insufficient maintenance, and overcrowding yield increased moisture
in the interior space and subsequent mould growth - accelerating the spread of viruses and bacteria and
resulting in disproportionately high prevalence of illnesses such as tuberculosis and asthma (MacTavish et
al., 2012). Additionally, a lack of capacity within the community in terms of skilled and experienced
housing managers, planners, technicians, and other skilled labour has meant that the cost of housing has
increased due to inefficient operations and outsourcing of contractors. This leads to a further missed
opportunity for community economic development, in local training, labour, and income (ibid). Housing
and physical living conditions have also been linked as a major factor in the relative poor health status of
Indigenous peoples as compared with the Canadian population as a whole (Drossos, 2003). Given all these
factors, many First Nations communities across Canada have become socially and psychologically
detached from their homes (MacTavish et al., 2012).

6 Case Study: First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun Housing

System
6.1 Self-Governance and Housing
Self-governance is now in operation for the majority of Yukon First Nations. Decades of land claims
negotiations in Yukon culminated in the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA) in 1993, which was the
framework structure for subsequent Final Agreements and Self-Government
Agreements (SGA) negotiated with Individual First Nations (Castillo et al., 2020). It is the SGA that
enables Nations who have signed and ratified their individual Final Agreements to determine who is a
citizen, pass their own laws, and design and deliver programs and services for their members. To date,
Final Agreements have been negotiated with 11 out of the 14 Yukon First Nations, and the First Nation of
Na-Cho Nyak Dun was amongst the first to sign a Final Agreement in 1995 (ibid). Under the land claims
agreement, the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun (NND) now owns 4,739.68 square kilometres
of Settlement Lands, including parcels in and adjacent to the town of Mayo (First Nation of Na-
Cho Nyäk Dun, 2021).

Page 24 of 76
Self-Governing Indigenous Governments (SGIG) in the Yukon have thus been in care, control, and
management of housing for over 20 years. Through a Programs and Services Transfer Agreement (PSTA),
the responsibility for housing, social services, and health was gradually transferred from the Government
of Canada to the First Nations (INAC, 2008). This gives Yukon First Nation governments law-making
authority and program responsibility over housing on land-claim and settlement lands ("Northern Policy
Hackathon", 2019b). This differs from First Nations without land claims or self-government agreements in
Yukon and elsewhere in Canada, where the federal Government has jurisdiction over housing on-reserve
and the First Nation is responsible for housing delivery ("Northern Policy Hackathon", 2019b).

6.2 Historical Context

The First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun (NND) is the most northernly community of the northern Tutchone
language and cultural group, and today resides primarily in the town of Mayo at the confluence of the Mayo
and Stewart rivers. The Stewart River’s traditional name is Na Cho Nyak, meaning Big River, and its
drainage is the heart of NND traditional territory (Gotthardt, 2006). Historically, their lifestyle required
them to live and travel throughout their traditional territory at various times of the year, to fish, hunt, and
gather food (First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun, 2021). Traditional camps were usually located near
waterways, and a network of storage caches, trails, fish camps, trapline cabins, lookouts, and burial sites
encompasses the entire territory, demonstrating their deep connection to the land (Peter et al., 2006).

Gold was first discovered in the Stewart River in 1883, and the Town of Mayo was established in 1903 as
an influx of prospectors advanced and settled in the region (Peter et al., 2006; Bleiler, 2006). The town
developed to become a service centre for significant mining in the area – with sternwheelers travelling the
Stewart to bring silver, zinc, and lead ores to Whitehorse (Village of Mayo, n.d.). In 1915 the NND people
were asked to pick a permanent village site – the site chosen was two miles below Mayo on the banks of
the Stewart, which today is known as the “Old Village”, where memories and some buildings still
exist (Peter et al., 2006). A flood in 1936 destroyed many buildings including the church where school was
held, and as a consequence many children were sent to school in Mayo or the residential school in Carcross,
the Chooutla Indian Residential School nearly 500km to the south (ibid.). The Mayo Indian band, as it was
then known, were later forced to relocate by the federal government from the Old Village to a parcel of
land ‘set aside’ for them on the eastern side of the town of Mayo, which is characterized by poor ground
conditions (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2014). In 1950, an all-weather road was completed linking
Whitehorse with Mayo (Village of mayo, n.d.). The rapidly growing mining industry, residential
schools, missionaries, and the Indian Act dramatically transformed the social, economic, and cultural life
of NND people – however, traditional knowledge and skills continue to be passed on through stories, arts,
and day-to-day living, as well as the modern self-government process (Peter et al., 2006.)

Page 25 of 76
6.3 Overview of Community and Housing
The First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun have a total membership of just over 600, with the majority living
in and around Mayo, and others living elsewhere in Yukon and beyond (First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun,
2014). The average population of the Village of Mayo is 423, approximately half of whom are NND
citizens (Village of Mayo, n.d.). The Nation currently has a housing stock of approximately 105 houses,
the majority of which are on Settlement Land, but also with a number outside Settlement Land within the
Village of Mayo (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2014). Most of the houses are smaller three and four
bedroom homes, and are in need of substantial repair or replacement (ibid). The Nation has two main
residential subdivisions – the southeast subdivision located east of the Mayo townsite, and the more
recently acquired C6 subdivision across the river from Mayo (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2008;
Hennessey et al., 2012). The majority of current housing stock is located in or adjacent to the Village
of Mayo, but there is a growing number of houses being constructed on the C6 (First Nation of Na-
cho Nyäk Dun, 2014).

Figure 1 - Village of Mayo and surrounding area. C6 subdivision pictured in yellow polygon; southeast subdivision in red
polygon. From Google Maps, by Google

The majority of current housing is located in the southeast subdivision, which is an area with permafrost
and groundwater issues (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2008). This eastern side of Mayo is swampy,
and the cold winters result in significant frost heave and shifting, which in turn affects the structures built
on this land by cracking walls, damaging foundations, destroying porches, breaking water lines, and
generally increasing maintenance costs (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2014). As a result, homes there
are built above ground leading to challenges with heating (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2008).
Excessive moisture and mould growth have been reported in the houses in this subdivision (Hennessey et
al., 2012). The unfavourable ground conditions in the southeast subdivision have created a situation where
the ongoing infrastructure and maintenance costs are unsustainable (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun,
2015).

The C6 site was one of the parcels selected by NND as part of the finalization of the land claims
process (Village of Mayo, 2016). The site also has favourable ground conditions and is less prone to the

Page 26 of 76
impacts of weather (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2014). This area is the site of the new NND
government offices, and there are plans to develop new residential housing and (Village of Mayo, 2016).
Currently 65 housing units are scheduled for development in the NND C6 subdivision by 2030, providing
significant additional residential development for the citizens of NND (Hennessey et al., 2012; Village
of Mayo, 2016). Due to the nature of the housing and land in the southeast subdivision, NND has indicated
that it is its long-term intention to relocate citizens currently in the Mayo east area to C6 over time (Village
of Mayo, 2016). The houses located on C6 are generally higher quality than those in the Village, as the
ground conditions are better and the buildings are newer (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2014).

Figure 2 - First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun administration building on the corner of C6 site, overlooking Village of Mayo.
First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun Facebook page.

In addition to the challenges associated with the age of the housing stock, other pressing issues for NND
include: a housing shortage, with more requests for housing than there are units available; and considerable
renovation work needed on existing stock, and limited reserve funds for maintenance and eventual
replacement (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2008). NND has a large inventory of social
housing, which is fully subsidized and there is currently no charge for individuals living in NND
housing (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2014). In its current state, NND’s housing situation cannot be
maintained without a major budget increase. Maintaining and growing it in its current operation is not
financially sustainable, and the lack of ownership opportunities prevents NND citizens from building
equity and wealth while remaining on settlement lands (ibid). Planning and housing was identified as one
of the top five infrastructure priorities for NND in their 2015-2025 Capital Plan (First Nation of Na-
cho Nyäk Dun, 2015). It has been identified as a critical need to address financial and capacity concerns
for keeping up existing housing stock and creating new units to meet evolving needs. Recent planning
efforts have included a Housing Policy developed in 2008 with updates and amendments in 2020 and 2021,
and a Housing Strategy developed in 2014. NND is also currently undertaking a housing needs assessment
and a major capital and community plan focused on the C6 area.

Page 27 of 76
7 Analysis
7.1 Analytical Framework
This section contains an analysis of the data gathered from interviews with six housing experts, as well
insights and experiences shared by staff and learned from community documents of the First Nation of Na-
cho Nyäk Dun. In an effort to bring a planning perspective to the realm of northern Indigenous housing, I
draw on Laura Mannell, Frank Palermo, and Crispin Smith’s (2013) six principles of good planning as a
lens to examining the expert interview data and case study. The principles represent notions of how to
conduct good planning, making the process, product, and action community-based and comprehensive
(ibid). However, none of the case studies that formed the basis of evidence for these principles were located
in Canada’s Territories (Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Yukon).

In this analytical framework structured through the lens of planning principles, I put the data gathered from
expert interviews and participatory action research with the First Nation of NND into dialogue with theories
on decolonizing northern housing. I selected five of the principles of good planning which were most
relevant for the analysis, namely: engage a broad cross-section of the community; value local and
traditional knowledge as well as outside ideas; reflect on the past and present; and connect the physical and
social; and establish a united direction for the future.

However, some additional dimensions emerged from the interviews, participatory action research with
NND, and literature that are not covered by the planning principles. Thus, taking direction and inspiration
from these areas I created two additional categories to frame the analysis: lessons from the north -
dimensions of northern living and building; and role of the planner. In the analysis, I interrogate how well
the planning principles resonate in a Canadian northern and sub-Arctic context. To aid in this analysis, I
draw on theory of Arctic Urbanism as well as lessons and insights from the participatory action research
with the community of NND, who acts as a case study for northern First Nations communities as well as
informing my research process.

In addition to extending the planning principles further north, the analysis will also point them more
specifically towards the subject of housing. The data collected from interviews with experts working with
housing in non-northern Indigenous communities will support this. Through this approach, I examine the
socio-cultural, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable housing designs, programs, and
policies of northern and Indigenous communities. Community planning relies on work on the ground,
where ideas, methods, and tools are tested and then refined based on experience (Mannell et al., 2013).
Thus, in the analysis I aim to explore what refinements and improvements might be taken into consideration
for community planning practice in the combined context of the Canadian north, in First Nations
communities, and in the sector of housing.

Page 28 of 76
7.2 Analysis 1: Dimensions of Planning Housing in Rural, Remote,
and Northern Indigenous Communities
7.2.1 Engage a broad cross-section of the community
Mannell et al.’s (2013) first principle of good planning is to engage a broad cross-section of the community,
to ensure a collective awareness of planning, and thus build redundancy into the planning process such that
it becomes a shared responsibility across individuals, departments, and elected officials. Being actively
involved and intentionally empowered through the process of planning, building, and governing housing
was a vital aspect of a successful community housing regime according to all experts interviewed. While
the need for community involved planning is clear, there remains much debate on what is considered
adequate community engagement (Mannell et al., 2013). Larsen and Hemmersam (2018) agree, adding that
in endeavouring to engage future thinking and planning in the development of the north, acting
transdisciplinary with communities, groups, and individuals is critical. The interview participants and NND
discussed what community involved planning around housing means to them.

In a few of the interviews, experts raised the importance of interdisciplinarity and engaging the whole
community. From the perspective of Fritz, to be able to address and communicate buildability challenges
from the beginning means having everyone at the table from an interdisciplinary perspective – not just a
lead architect, but also the builders, engineers, and other professions involved in the process. This is so that
when they are doing a design charette or other method of co-design, they should be able to talk about what
is possible, and understand who wants what, and what the overall constraints are from the very beginning.
McCartney adds that when you talk about housing with a community, the first people who show up to a
community meeting are the plumbers, electricians, carpenters, builders, and housing managers – and there
is a need to expand beyond just those people who put houses together to an entire community discussion.
This means moving out into the broader community and talking with people about housing as a social
venture, not just the building of a house; for instance, how housing affects the culture of a family, and how
to house this better. It is in this discussion that the richness emerges, including in governance and design.
The practice of engaging the voices of diverse community members and stakeholders, both in a
multidisciplinary and demographic sense, agrees with Pulla (2012) who contends that community
engagement should instill a process approach that brings in more people to more parts of the process to
help ensure that all parts can come together as best as possible. The inclusion of a broad cross-section of
the community from different “walks of life” ensures that a plan will represent the many important
perspectives (Mannell et al., 2013), or what Fritz calls “procedural justice”. This means that there is a need
to talk to the women, talk to the children, talk to the people who actually spend most of the time in those
houses, according to Fritz; as well as groups often overlooked such as youth and Elders, adds McCartney.

Page 29 of 76
 An important aspect of this dialogue with the broader community is to consider how it is done. One
participant explains that “We need […] to be interviewing people about what they want in a housing
design away from all the power structures.” (Stacey Fritz).

For instance, a Western model of a townhall meeting, in terms of people presenting different data to an
audience with an opportunity for questions and input in front of everybody, may get very different results
than more intimate, respectful, and empowering methods, explains McCartney. Fritz gives the example
that in large meetings, the quiet shy young woman may not feel comfortable speaking up and say whether
a housing design is going to suit her needs and realities, in terms of cooking, cleaning, processing, and
childcare. Rather, part of this planning principle means that a community-based approach should enable
everyone in the community to have their voice heard in a supportive environment (Mannell et al., 2013).
This involves promoting dialogue and creative solutions to challenging problems by providing a more
inclusive forum for discussion, negotiation, compromise, and building understanding (ibid).

While there are a diversity of needs and opinions within any given community, at the same time community
members frequently share similar opinions but may be hesitant to share them for fear of being chastised,
especially if talking on a sensitive topic (Mannell et al., 2013). Fritz explains that there are a lot of things
in housing design that people are embarrassed to talk about. For example, some people may not want
hidden bedrooms at the end of a long dark hallway, where for example sexual abuse could occur unnoticed.
Some people may want a more open design, for a variety of personal or practical reasons. In one
community, residents requested an octagonal shaped home where all the bedrooms faced the main living
room.

Design charettes are a frequently used method for community co-design, but McCartney notes that because
of the way they are set up, the power dynamics are off. While there might not be a way to fully Indigenize
a charette, their organization actively engages in these types of discussions with their First Nation partners.
This echoes Erfan and Hemphill’s (2013) contention that it is not appropriate for the external planner to
“Indigenize” the process, but rather tailoring a process to be in tune with the unique local context and
culture should come from within the community. In this researcher’s approach, the space for this dialogue
and adaptation to occur was created, thus better ensuring that the planning process was in service of the
community, rather than the reverse.

McCartney shares that in their experience one methodology that has proven to be a very democratic way
to have feedback given and gathered from a wide variety of people is the sharing circle, which is a
traditional methodology used by many First Nations. In this method, people sit or stand in a circle, and one
after another going around the circle people get the chance to share their thoughts. It is an interesting way
of giving everyone the same chance to speak, because if someone is in the circle they have to share and

Page 30 of 76
cannot opt out, and it is not constantly directed back to a leader or facilitator. This may be one way of
decolonizing the planning and engagement process, by challenging the planner (or facilitator’s) tendency
to talk too much or steer the process in a way that suits their agenda rather than the needs of the community
(Erfan & Hemphill, 2013). However, Erfan and Hemphill (2013) also suggest caution in this regard, that it
is disrespectful to assume that Indigenous communities all follow the same protocols and will respond to
the same planning approaches, and the external planner should not impose what they think are appropriate
Indigenous practices or methodologies.

In explaining the need for engaging a broad cross-section of the community, Mannell et al. (2013) explain
that a plan cannot be the Chief’s direction, the staff’s hopes, or a Councilor's pet project, or else it will lack
the necessary momentum to stay alive. Furthermore, it is not enough that a plan comes from the community;
it must be understood, championed, and appropriated by the community (ibid). McCartney shares a story
of how they experienced the community choosing its own housing policy resulted in the policy being a
success. One day in one of their partner communities, an incident happened with regards to housing and
people were talking about what they should do about it. Then someone posted a picture on their community
Facebook group of a page from their Indigenous language translated housing policy with the comment
“didn’t we decide that this is what we were going to do when this happened?”. This incident indicates that
the housing policy was working, that it was living and breathing, in that it was acceptable to the community
and people were using it. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) requires that communities
create a housing policy in order to access funding for housing, and often this results in a report that sits on
a shelf that lawyers put together with a generic template that says “insert First Nation name here”. The idea
of simply producing a “report on a shelf” is the most common complaint about planning (Mannell et al.,
2013). McCartney’s story exemplifies the way in which the community’s housing policy was effective
because it was championed and upheld by the community. Furthermore, developing living community
planning processes in such a way is also part of the decolonization process, because it privileges what is
important and relevant for the community rather than a bureaucratic or reporting requirement, for instance
as dictated by CMHC funding requirements (Erfan & Hemphill, 2013).

NND is working towards updating their housing policy that it is more relevant and actionable in the
community. One of their challenges in the past has been that some of the policies were rarely or only
inconsistently applied, and thus was not a living document in the community. Another challenge was that
the decision-making authority, such as allocating housing, was assigned to Chief and Council, and thus
there was sometimes a community perception of favouritism in this process. In moving to depoliticize the
housing policy in the eyes of the community, the new housing policy proposes to create a Housing
Authority composed of a citizen board who would be responsible for all decisions around housing.
Furthermore, the Housing Authority would have established decision-making processes and criteria as well

Page 31 of 76
as their own Terms of Reference in order to make all government-related housing processes more
consistent, transparent, and legitimate.

These experiences shared by the experts speaks to the way that a circular concept for community
engagement, or an approach that is intentionally relational, structurally egalitarian, and supportive of
inclusion and wholeness as described by Wilson (2008), is important. Wilson discusses putting this
relationality into practice in research, and their notions could be extended to the form of planning research
that occurs through community engagement. The experts interviewed described creating engagement
spaces attempt to bring in the community’s different “walks of life”, enabling all of those voices to be
heard equally and safely, and finally the resultant plan being reflective of the community’s voices and
upholds what is important to them as well as being presented in a relevant format, such as in their own
language.

7.2.2 Value local and traditional knowledge as well as outside ideas

Hybrid Spaces
Mannell et al.’s (2013) third principle of good planning is to value local and traditional knowledge as well
as outside ideas. This means that a planning process must incorporate local ideas, build on local knowledge,
and develop local skills, and at the same time be open to new ideas, knowledge, and experience from an
outside perspective (ibid). In the context of transformation in the north, this principle relates to the way
that the shifting intersections between traditional and contemporary life emerge as new hybrid forms.
Sheppard and White (2017) understand this phenomenon as future thinking for the north, in that holding
space for the negotiations between ‘traditional’ and ‘contemporary’ life in community planning and design
can create opportunities for empowerment. This process may well fall within Prusak et al. (2015) proffer
of “Indigenous Planning”, as an emergent paradigm in the context of contemporary planning that seeks to
reclaim historic, contemporary, and future-oriented planning approaches of Indigenous communities.

Part of this process of future thinking and hybridization of local and traditional knowledge with outside
ideas involves developing new housing solutions that are culturally appropriate to the local needs of the
community. However, what ‘culturally appropriate’ looks like for each community, or indeed each unique
individual, is less clear. One of the experts explains that “We’re in a time of amazing change, and there’s
not consensus on how traditional or modern anyone wants to live, whether it be north of 60 or not” (Aaron
Cooke). This change described by Cooke echoes Larsen and Hemmersam’s (2018) understanding of the
Arctic as not only diverse, conflictual, and narrated, in that traditional or modern conceptions of identity
and cultural belonging are far from unanimous - but also that the Arctic is emerging as speculative and in
many forms, as hybrid identities, lifestyles, and structures are continuously created, appropriated and
reinvented. It is a colonial idea that everyone is better off in a bungalow house with a white picket fence

Page 32 of 76
just like anywhere else in the world – however Cooke also warns that it can cause trouble by presupposing
what level of traditional life people want to live and assume that that is a unanimous, consensual decision
in any community. Indeed, they argue that broad sweeping programs based on speculations of what a
traditional or modern home should look like does not fit reality, because people live along a spectrum; they
may hunt seals all day and play Xbox all night.

Connection as empowerment
Another dimension of this planning principle is that “by being open to new ideas and connecting them to
what is happening locally, communities are better able to identify and celebrate the special qualities that
make them unique as well as recognize new possibilities” (Mannell et al., 2013). Cooke explains that
connecting rural and remote Arctic communities to the Internet has been transformational in this regard, in
that communities are no longer solely reliant on state television for information from the outside world,
rather everyone can access information how and when they want it. They give the example that people can
now binge watch a whole show on tiny homes in some hipster town in the Pacific northwest and realize
that if they build these in their community, they could build a lot more of them. As a result, their
organization has been getting many more requests for projects like this, purely based on exposure to media
that was not there before for remote communities. They go on to reflect that it is empowering for
communities to be able to access the information and media they want, and as a result leadership now has
the tools and knowledge to consider whether a housing option will work for them, and their suite of services
gets larger, rather than being dependant on whoever is coming out to market to them. This resonates with
Mannell et al.’s (2013) planning principle, that connecting outside with local and traditional ideas results
in communities having more tools and knowledge to achieve something extraordinary. Cooke elaborates:

“If you have more options, you start thinking that you can design your own option. In that way, I
think [that a major success is] creating an environment where young leaders from rural areas know
that the 3-bedroom government house isn’t their only option, that they can do other creative, neat
things. It doesn’t need to be something that someone from a research centre has come up with, just
to know that there’s a lot of ways to ‘skin that cat’ is helpful for young people that are looking at
the same row of government houses all the way down the street that look exactly the same and are
failing in exactly the same way. That diversity of approach means that creative young people in
rural areas have a place to start.”

These reflections reinforce that accessibility to knowledge is a crucial aspect to fostering innovation and
improvements for communities. In particular, this points to how addressing the digital divide by linking
rural and remote communities with high-speed internet access has direct and indirect impacts on the
informed decision-making on the betterment of housing options in those communities. This increased

Page 33 of 76
access to information and exposure to outside ideas may also contribute to Larsen and Hemmersam’s
(2018) understanding that the Arctic is a diverse and perpetually emerging landscape, as creative people
recognize and enact different possibilities in their communities. As these ideas are appropriated and
reimagined by communities, they also advance new hybrid forms that are based in evolving cultural needs
as well as being adaptive to what Semple (2013) describes as “an emerging northern culture".

While the advent of internet access in rural and remote Arctic communities may be spurring hybrid
innovation on a new scale and in different forms, the practice of incorporating local and imported materials
and designs in order to better respond to local needs and aspirations is not a new phenomenon in the north.
The emerging hybrids between outside ideas and local adaptation in the north is echoed examples shared
by Andersen (2013) as well as Fritz. Fritz explains that because of the great difficulty of transporting
building materials in the remote Arctic, people have had to be very resourceful – for example, taking
materials from DEW line sites and repurposing them to build hunting cabins. Andersen (2013) gives the
example of rectangular log cabins adopted by Indigenous peoples in Arctic Canada, which are often
denigrated as a borderline case of ‘pure’ vernacular architecture in the north, and illustrative of cultural
assimilation through adoption of settler ‘boxed’ architecture; but an alternate view might consider all forms
of shelter tailored from local material, where differences in design imply different ways of approaching the
same problem, then this does not make these dwellings any less creative or woven into the social setting.
Indeed, both of these cases speak to the way that new hybrid forms emerge by adapting traditional functions
and local needs with imported materials or designs, spurred by necessity, resourcefulness, creativity. This
phenomenon is also documented by Havelka’s (2018) research in the Canadian Eastern Arctic, where they
noted that in response to ill-suited housing Inuit communities have produced a new generation of self-built,
mobile dwellings that incorporate both local and imported technologies and materials in a hybrid
vernacular.

7.2.3 Reflection on the past and present

Mannell et al. (2013) explain that though planning is about the future, it relies on information from the past
and present to understand what a community is about and how it got to be in its current situation. Gathering
and consolidating this information provides a basis for determining where the community should go next
(ibid). Walker and Matunga (2013) add that Indigenous planning “has a future orientation that will be fully
informed by the past, and by how that past has formed the present” (p.15). In starting a bold and visionary
planning process for community and neighbourhood planning, NND is embracing this principle by making
the focus of the first phase of this project to understand and recalibrate “where we were and where we are
now”. This means reviewing and revisiting former plans, previous Elder’s meetings, and General Assembly

Page 34 of 76
(GA) 3 resolutions, and before taking them to the next level by building in healthy living concepts,
regenerative and healing concepts, energy sovereignty, improved infrastructure, and extensive additional
community engagement. Before beginning any new planning, NND is asking for a complete summary and
analysis of these historical and past documents, followed by a couple of new community meetings that ask:
this is what we heard back in 2007, 2010, and 2016 (for example), what do we think now? Developing a
strong understanding of past and current information is specifically intended to be the foundation for future
planning at NND. Fritz expressed almost an identical sentiment, explaining that planners and other external
partners working with communities should come in as prepared as possible, being able to say “here’s what
I’ve learned from everything that’s been said in the past: do you still agree with this? Has it changed?”,
rather than placing the burden of educating them on community members and being the 50th person to show
up and ask the same questions and gather the same information that was already shared.

Part of understanding how communities got to be in their current situation means looking at the colonial
history of housing. In many ways, the design and construction of housing in the north is based on southern
models that have been transplanted, and do not reflect the climate or unique cultural context of northern
peoples (Semple, 2013). Indeed, this is a pattern across Canada, where First Nations communities have
frequently had to settle for standardized solutions designed for another context – whether that is
prefabricated houses, subdivision patterns, housing policies, or band governance structures – despite the
very different physical, social, cultural, and population characteristics of the places where they are applied
(Mannell et al., 2013). This stems in part from a misconception that neighbouring or related remote
Indigenous communities are the same, but in fact all have very specific histories, differing environmental
contexts, as well as distinct individuals, explains Fritz. Lepine explains that trying to generalize a housing
program often does not go over well within a community. Another participant added:

“The truth is, in the Arctic and the sub-Arctic, it’s such a large region with such a large amount of
different cultures and histories and physical parameters, that’s part of the reason we’re in the mess
we’re in was because there was a time when people thought that one housing model would be
suitable for the entire north.” (Aaron Cooke)

Erfan and Hemphill (2013) attest that each community has unique traditions, histories, and relationships,
and thus any attempt at doing Indigenous planning means being attuned and sensitive to the unique local
context. Thus, developing a solid understanding of the current realities and challenges of a community is
a vital starting point for planning for the future. Cooke shared an insight from their engagement process:

3
General Assembly (GA): It is a tradition for Yukon First Nations to hold annual General Assemblies, where citizens gather to
discuss governmental affairs, set priorities for the future, and socialize.

Page 35 of 76
people do not always know what they want, but they definitely know what they don’t want, they know
what is not working in their communities – so talking about what the challenges are with existing housing
is a starting point. Jacobs explained that it is critical to gain a good picture of community members’ needs,
as well as what their main concerns are around housing. It is for this reason that NND is undertaking a
housing needs assessment that goes beyond population data, income, and currently available and projected
housing units. Rather, their vision for the project is first to assess the gaps in order to better understand the
challenges of their current situation, and then to gather community members’ stories and experiences with
housing as a foundation for beginning discussions about priorities and objectives.

Understanding strengths and issues

Furthermore, Mannell et al. (2013) explain that part of this planning principle requires identifying and
reflecting upon a community’s strengths and issues, and their root causes, in order to develop an
understanding of what can be built upon and what needs to be changed. Compiling, organizing, and
synthesizing data on strengths and issues is essential in the planning process, providing a useful baseline
reference to help inform or reinforce particular directions or actions (ibid). Many communities hope to
reclaim autonomy over housing and make the design and construction processes as community-based as
possible. Communities in the north face an additional layer of complexity in this undertaking, given factors
such as high cost of transportation, energy, and building materials, shortage of specialized labourers, a
short construction season, and severe climate (Senate Canada, 2015). Thus, extending this planning
practice to a northern context might mean identifying the practical capabilities and capacities of a given
community to implement and manage different aspects of a housing project, in order to understand what is
possible and plan accordingly. Jacobs explains that any housing project must be very practical in terms of
what the needs are, as well as what can practically be done. This aligns with Jojola’s (2008) understanding
of comprehensive planning as being based on an inventory approach - that is, “what can you do with the
resources you currently have” (p.43). Jacobs adds that it is crucial at the early planning stages to develop
an understanding of how the systems being proposed will work within the context of the community’s
needs and capabilities – for example, finding out what kind of contractors are available and capable of
building the proposed homes.

“Having this amazing vision is one thing, and it’s really important to have the vision and the passion
and the […] cultural connection for the rationale for doing these projects, which is what we had.
But also making sure that that vision is aligned with the needs and the practical capabilities of the
community to implement them.” (Lynn Jacobs)

Fritz agrees that it is critical to evaluate and understand the community’s resources as far as people. They
explained that their organization is currently exploring ways to address this information gathering process

Page 36 of 76
in a more systematic way by developing a “capacity checklist”, so that there is a way to understand the
baseline capabilities and limitations within any given community they partner with, and develop solutions
accordingly. They add that in addition to people resources, this information gathering on local capabilities
should include evaluating the logistics, in terms of all the ways that housing parts reach a community. This
might include asking questions such as: what kind of materials can get there? how do supplies get there?
What are the transport dependencies? If heavy or large parts or supplies are being brought in, is there heavy
equipment available in the community to move them? They assert that it does not matter how great a house
is if you cannot get it to the community. People have shared stories of someone buying a house, it gets
dropped off in their community by barge, and then there is no way to move it to the site. In the case of
NND, an example shared is that when lumber, materials, and supplies are delivered to the community for
the purpose of housing construction, there is no safe place to store the materials to protect against weather
damage or theft. They reflected that in the past, there was a pattern of implementing plans in a piecemeal
rather than in a logical sequential order, often as a result of external pressures.

Cooke shared an example of an innovative prototype they are currently in the process of developing for a
particular community that exemplified this idea, identifying and working around their community partner’s
crucial capacity gaps and building upon their strengths. This community wanted to use an all-local crew to
construct the unit and had the labour workforce available, but they were missing a plumber. Due to their
remoteness, it is astronomically expensive to bring in an external plumber. The solution co-developed with
the community was to take out the part that costs the most money and they did not have a skilled technician
for, while still keeping as jobs as possible in the community. They are doing this by building a kitchen and
bathroom in a shipping container in their research lab, which they will then ship out as a whole module to
the community, and then this container gets “plugged in like a flash drive” and the rest of the house is built
around it conventionally.

7.2.4 Connect the physical and social

Mannell et al.’s (2013) fifth principle of good planning is to embrace and connect both the physical and
social components of a community. They argue that the physical and social structures of a community are
intrinsically linked and should not be considered in isolation from one another in planning: “the layout of
houses, roads, services, and facilities influence the health, happiness, safety, and well-being of its residents”
(p.135). This notion can be extended to planning for housing, and concepts from systems-thinking may
help support identifying and building on the interlinkages between physical organization and structures,
and social impacts and outcomes. This also relates Wilson’s (2008) understanding of an Indigenous
research paradigm, that everything is connected to everything else and thus research has an important role
to bring awareness to those connections and increase their relationship.

Page 37 of 76
Housing systems
All of the expert interview participants emphasised that housing in Indigenous communities was not just
about having four walls and a roof. Rather, the planning, construction, and occupation of a house had to
encompass and integrate many more social, cultural, economic, and environmental objectives and
considerations in order to be considered successful. These success factors include employment, capacity
building, economic development, fostering independence, relationship with the land, empowering local
supply chains, healthy lifestyles, ecological sustainability, and more. Connecting the social as well as
economic impact to housing is vital, advocates Lepine. Too often people focus only on housing, which is
important, but the main focus should be people. NND also emphasized that there needs to be an integrated
approach to housing - smart planning to create a spectrum of housing that meets multiple objectives, from
energy to climate adaptation to life cycle costing.

Persaud contends that one of the problems with the way that communities are planning for housing is that
they are trying to emulate the ways that housing is developed in non-Indigenous communities, namely:
find land, make it serviceable, come up with housing plans, find a contractor, build the house. Pulla (2012)
echoes this sentiment, explaining that when new housing is made available in the north, it is often regulated
on specific building lines and with site development geared according to the demands of modern servicing
rather than the actual needs of the local residents. What is missing in this, explains Persaud, is
understanding the ways in which those where those houses are being placed have significance to peoples’
connection to the land, how houses that are being built are being supportive of the various types of
wellbeing that different Indigenous peoples want and need in relation to their cultural and economic needs
within those structures, how the entire process integrates where materials are coming from and who is
building the houses.

Lepine contends that as First Nation governments start creating a path for independence, housing is just
one aspect of this change. That is to say, that housing is not a standalone component of community
development, but rather part of a bigger system of transformation. Indeed, Semple (2013) highlights that it
is not possible to meaningfully address community and housing needs without seeing how all the systems
work together. For buildings, for example, this might mean understanding that buildings operate as a
system, with all of the components interacting with and affecting each other. For communities, this might
mean understanding how layout, density and spatial organization impacts transportation and efficient use
of technologies and infrastructure (ibid). Semple (2013) further argues that effective design for truly
northern communities requires an integration of ideas, including location, climate, technology, and culture.
In their organization’s work, Persaud aims to conceptualize an ‘ecosystems-based approach’ to housing.
In this, the biggest lesson they’ve learned is with planning: thinking about all of the moving pieces, all of
the integral parts of a system that come into play, making sure you're not missing any of the pieces. Though

Page 38 of 76
inevitably some pieces do get missed, it is important to approach it with a comprehensive planning
approach and doing adequate preliminary research before jumping into anything.

Living systems and housing as landscape

Just as housing was a site for the deployment of colonialism, transforming it into an asset that is appropriate,
relevant, and meaningful for the occupant gives it potential to become a site of engagement in
decolonization efforts (Monk, 2006). With this transformative potential in mind, Cook (2013) asks, what
then does an approach to planning that is culturally appropriate, learning-based, capacity-driven, socially
just, deliberate and creative look like in practice? NND and the experts interviewed discussed various
ways that they were undertaking future thinking in this regard, seeking to advance culturally appropriate
solutions that blended local and traditional qualities with new possibilities. Thus, a decolonized planning
lens might understand housing as more than just a dwelling unit, and systems thinking can help
conceptualize this broader definition of home as what Andersen (2013) calls a “system of settings”. A few
of the experts interviewed reinforced that culturally appropriate housing is as much about the built structure
as it is about its surrounding environment. Persaud explains: “Culturally appropriate housing is not just in
the built environment; It’s in the land as well, it’s in where those houses are situated” (Anthony Persaud).
This directly reflects Andersen’s (2013) contention that the concept of ‘home’ in an Arctic context is a
system of settings and an entire cultural landscape, rather than bounded unitary structures, as well as
McCartney’s (2016) argument that housing systems should not be reduced to merely the creation of shelter
or isolated dwelling units.

Imposed settlement and development patterns, including housing, was a means through which settlers
attempted to reorganize Indigenous societies into something more like that of the colonizers, according to
their values and norms (Monk, 2006). Indeed, the gridded streets and suburban-style three-bedroom houses
that were constructed across the Canadian sub-Arctic are predicated on a normative preference for nuclear
families and maximizing private space, which has imposed a physical manifestation of colonialism on
countless communities (McCartney 2016). Thus, Fritz underscores that understanding the design of a
community means not only looking at the houses, but also the orientation and settlement pattern – then
asking the community, is this how you would have done it? Or is there a more natural or practical spatial
organization to how you would have wanted your houses situated? They explain that it is for this reason
that in their work, they do not only ask people about housing specifically, but also prompt people to
envision what they would want if they had their dream community. Mannell et al. (2013) add that an
essential part of the community planning process should be to determine what areas should be protected
and where future development should occur.

Page 39 of 76
Jacobs shared an example of the way culturally appropriate design connects to neighbourhood and
community-level planning in their home community of Kahnawake. In their community, people prefer to
live in close proximity to their family members and relatives, so families have tended to live and build in
that organic way. However, the contemporary conventional way of allocating property and land in their
community has no family-orientation principles: members become eligible for a quarter acre at a certain
age, and are allocated a plot of land wherever it is available. The consequence is that the traditional family
closeness is lost. In their sustainable neighbourhood concept (see Jacobs, 2002), they planned to allocate
lots in such a way as to allow people in the future to have access to the lots adjacent to their family members.
They also planned to create lots that were slightly larger so that they could potentially accommodate two
homes in the future. They wanted to re-integrate a lot of different community cultural concepts that have
been a part of their culture for generations – but have been challenging to implement because of the way
lots are allocated currently in the conventional system - into the neighbourhood concept. For instance, one
of these concepts includes bringing back the idea of shared resources, such as a neighbourhood tool shed,
or shared garden areas where people can garden in common.

This future thinking on culturally appropriate housing as being linked with the land, spatial organization,
and surrounding environment is one that resonates with NND’s approach to future residential development
on the C6 parcel. In a similar fashion to what Jacobs tried to advance in their project, NND envisions that
their future residential neighbourhood will be designed around facilitating community living and
relationship-building, where lots would be arranged around spaces for cultural practice, amenities that
promote healing and healthy living, shared facilities, walking and recreation, and space for children. This
is a marked shift towards integrating the physical dwellings of housing with the social and cultural
landscape and surrounding environment. This vision of ensuring future residential development as
designed around community life first resonates with Sheppard and White (2017), who attest that the 21st
century presents an opportunity to better integrate the built form with the public realm, as well as address
the shifting intersections between traditional and contemporary northern life. Furthermore, NND citizens
identified the C6 parcel as an area where future development should occur because of the historical and
cultural significance of the site. The site is on a bluff overlooking the Stewart River and Village of Mayo,
and is the site on an old village and cemetery (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2008). In fact, some
Elders expressed that they were very pleased that the community would grow here because it felt like
“moving back home”.

With their pilot project, Jacobs explained that they did not just plan a series of houses, they designed an
entire system. While ultimately their neighbourhood concept was not implemented, the underlying
philosophy behind it was that:

Page 40 of 76
 “It’s not just about a house, it’s about your whole surrounding, your home, your surroundings, the
place where you live, the land. That's something we tried to incorporate, and something my family
has tried to incorporate into our living place. It’s not just the home, it’s the whole surrounding, and
how you work with the land.” (Lynn Jacobs)

They added that systems-based approach involves thinking beyond just the structures we live in to thinking
about our living systems, and that far from being only a lofty ideal, it can be something tangible that
individuals implement in their own lives:

“We try to work with the land as sustainably as possible, to be more sustainable ourselves in our
living systems. Not everybody can do those things within the place that they live, but everybody
can implement something beyond just the structure of the house that you live in - how you live
your life, it’s your lifestyle that is important in the concepts we were trying to promote.” (Lynn
Jacobs)

This ethos of considering housing as integrated with social and ecological dimensions is one echoed by
NND, in their visionary thinking around the future planning of residential developments in their
community. They are envisioning a net-zero neighbourhood founded on regenerative design concepts and
creative and holistic living. They want the neighbourhood design to consider community healing,
relationship-building, communal spaces, and recreational spaces based on the wants and needs of the
community. They are also highly conscious of the impacts of climate change including permafrost thaw
and wildfires, learning from the lessons of other Yukon communities, and want the future neighbourhood
design to account for sensitive areas.

Tools for systematic thinking

Persaud also explained that all of these things are often thought about, but it is very challenging for
communities to consider all of them in tandem, in a system. All of these different considerations and pieces
and challenges can be overwhelming to take on all at the same time, and a few participants shared different
ideas about how much complexity might be approached. McCartney suggests looking for that piece that
you can begin to work with, to provide a sense that you can actually work on something as interconnected
as housing, which connects with education, labour force, food security, holistic health, and more. By
working in this one layer, it is then important to approach it inter-disciplinarily so that the other pieces can
then be taken into account. Persaud adds that it is also a matter of creating space within communities and
administrations to think about housing ecosystems and long-term and integrated housing planning – for
instance through a dedicated job position where it is that person’s role to think and plan long-term and
systemically regarding housing.

Page 41 of 76
Fritz is working on developing a decision-making matrix for their organization, in order to have a
systematic process similar to an Environmental Impact Assessment for identifying and weighing as many
relevant factors within a community setting as possible, including: what is the need and purpose of a
proposed action, what are the baseline conditions that will be affected, what are various alternatives, what
are all the effects of each alternative, then weighing all of these impacts to determine which alternative is
the best. This includes a checklist of sorts, to ensure that outcomes across areas such as local labour,
specialized labour, affordability, durability, maintainability, community capacity and transportation
logistics are accounted for in the planning process. This approach is in line with Gibb and Marsh (2019),
who explain that one way that systems thinking can be applied fruitfully to housing strategy and policy
development is by developing a checklist approach that keeps these important ideas at the forefront when
in engaging in interventions that seek to leverage housing outcomes across a complex system. Indeed, they
further argue that while there is value in adopting a systems perspective in general, there is also a need to
demand more of systems thinking and move beyond the reliance on heuristic tools towards an application
of these principles in operational empirical models (ibid). Developing a form of systematic checklist,
evaluative framework, or decision-making matrix may be one way to operationalize systems thinking into
an empirical and practicable method.

Value-added outcomes
This leads to some kind of consensus between the case study and interview participants that the
development of housing should intentionally have multiple value-added outcomes. Additionally, one of
the key recommendations from the 2018 ‘Northern Housing Forum’ asserted
that “housing programs should align with public investments in job creation, skills training, transit, early
learning, healthcare, and cultural and recreational infrastructure” (“Northern Housing Forum”, 2019). If
the output is only a house, then the true potential for community benefit is not realized. Persaud explains
that it is for this reason that their organization has reoriented their approach in the past five years, so that
they are focusing much more on process rather than only product. A process-oriented approach to housing
resonates with Vehbi et al.’s (2010) contention that sustainable housing should not just be about about
meeting shelter needs, but should also improve livability and quality of life in terms of environmental,
social, and economic aspects. In Indigenous communities across Canada, it is not uncommon that ready-
to-move housing is brought into the community from across the province while skilled community
members sit jobless at home (Mannell et al., 2013).

For Lepine, the most important thing is to keep money in the community, benefit citizens, and give citizens
an opportunity to get into the trades. Some people might say that barging in prefabricated modules is the
best way to meet housing need – but that does not provide any local employment, and in fact it actively
takes away the small amount of cash jobs that are available in some communities, explains Fritz. Cooke

Page 42 of 76
agrees, that they wouldn’t be doing the community a favour by pre-building the whole house and shipping
the completed unit out there, because in many cases there are not enough local jobs so those additional
opportunities with construction are important. They add: “Because if you only build one prototype and it
just sits there and no one knows how it was built, then we haven’t really accomplished our goals” (Aaron
Cooke, 39:11). Indeed, Persaud argues that finding those ways to connect opportunities to housing is a
really important form of community consultation. A comprehensive approach seeks to identify and build
upon these potential value-added connections, thinking broadly about how one project or program can
address as many issues as possible (Mannell et al., 2013).

Capacity building
One approach to thinking about how one project (for example, building a house) can address multiple
issues or objectives (for example, unemployment, supporting individuals with barriers, and housing
shortage) is through capacity building and involvement in the building process. Having direct involvement
in the building process by the future residents and community is important for building knowledge and
skills, as well as to foster a sense of pride and belonging. A few of the experts interviewed reflected on the
ways that being directly part of the building process has deep impacts on those individuals. Jacobs explains
that “people feel empowered by being able to actually build a part of their home, or somebody else’s home
and learn how to do it for themselves. So that was an important component of both [sustainable housing
pilot] projects”. Cooke added that “If we know how we live, and we’re involved in the construction of our
own home, then it’s more likely to suit us”.

They go on to explain that people think differently when they know something is not going to be done for
them, and that they have a lot to offer – but that does not mean that they do not need help. In a recent
project in Mountain Village, Alaska, their organization built 6 homes for individuals who were homeless,
but required that the future resident or a member of their family be part of the work crew. The purpose was
so that they could understand the technologies that were going in the house that may be different than what
was in public housing, but also so that those involved had a pride of place and pride of working with their
own hand. Cooke believes that this is a really valuable model. In a similar project, Lepine developed a
program for building tiny homes where the future residents were part of the crew building their own homes,
and those of their neighbours. All of the individuals involved were on social assistance and faced many
barriers to housing. They explain that the project was ultimately about building life skills to help individuals
move forward, not about building tiny houses. Individuals who have barriers may not have the tools to
make decisions or the capacity for dealing with unprecedented events – and one of those major barriers is
housing:

Page 43 of 76
 “In terms of the change of those individuals, one of the barriers of a person moving forward is
housing. Because if you’re couch surfing, you’re not going to look at helping yourself as an
individual if you’ve got to look for a place to sleep every night.” (Nelson Lepine)

Other barriers include food (i.e. it is difficult to help yourself if you are looking for food every night) and
transportation (i.e. if you cannot get to the house where food is). Lepine asks, how can we expect an
individual who has lost some of the basic life skills we take for granted to function if they do not have
access to these basic foundations – food, transportation, and housing? Some might see providing these
basics as enabling people, but in reality, it is necessary to eliminate these foundational barriers for those
individuals to be successful, because then they can focus on their healing path. Thus, for housing to achieve
social impact or outcomes, it must encompass and advance these foundational pieces for individuals.

When discussing empowerment through involvement in the building process, a few other interview
participants also discussed how this process was critical to building knowledge and skills – for everything
from site preparation and construction techniques to project management and inventory. Jacobs shares how
this process worked in their sustainable housing pilot project in Kahnawake. During construction, the
project team invited people to spend the day and help out installing straw bales. Volunteers showed up
from the community and from all over Montreal to help out and participate. They kept a list of interested
volunteers and penciled them into a schedule over the course of the bale installation process. Most days
during the construction, volunteers came to learn and help, and some came back regularly because they
wanted to learn how to build their own house. When they built their own straw-bale house (the second
project), the local high-school carpentry class students came to learn about the method and work with them.
Volunteers also came and helped with their house because they wanted to learn about it, and so a lot of
sweat equity went into this project as well. To their knowledge, no other straw bale homes have been built
in their community since, although there were people from outside the community who built straw bale
homes after participating or learning about their project. Through this process, a pool of interested people
grew within the community who communicated with one another and worked on different types of
sustainable housing projects – including off grid homes, and even a house built with tires. As planning
projects are implemented, there should be the opportunity for diverse skills to be developed, including
fundraising, project management, design, and construction (Mannell et al., 2013). A community-based
approach, such as this one, ensured that community members developed the skills, knowledge, and
awareness to be a force for action and change (ibid), as can be seen in the way that volunteers used their
newfound skills and knowledge to incorporate in their own lives.

Cooke shares how they make this capacity-building process an integral part of how they develop projects
with communities: When a community approaches their organization about designing and building a house

Page 44 of 76
for them, the design expert talks to them about how they might create a demonstration house that is suitable
and adapted to their community. Throughout the winter they work on designing the house, draft drawings,
send it out to bid, and put in on a barge for delivery. At sea-ice break-up, they send two instructors out to
the community, everyone else has to be local. They then do inventory with the local work crew, meet with
the future homeowner, and live out in the community for 6-8 weeks and build together. In the second year,
if the community likes the home and wants to scale up and build more, the instructors just come at the
beginning of the building process, and then return a couple of times over the season to do inspections,
rather than managing the process on the ground for the full 8 weeks. By the third year, the community
“graduates”, so the instructors do not need to show up at all and the local workforce builds as many houses
as they can afford or need on their own.

NND has been exploring developing something akin to a “Habitat for Humanity” model for housing. This
model is based on establishing an affordable mortgage geared to income, combined with the future
residents volunteering a set number of hours in the construction of their own or another’s house. This model
is intended to bridge a gap for low-income families and households and create an opportunity for them to
purchase their own home. Recognizing that the cost of housing in the north may make home ownership
unattainable for many of their citizens, NND wants to develop a model that reduces barriers to explore
their options and access different types of ownership around housing based on a ‘hand up’ rather than a
‘hand out’.

All of the projects described share an approach that upheld the need to have the project outcome be more
than just a house, but rather also advance multiple community benefits and address many issues at once, to
make the house a broader force for transformation.

7.2.5 Establish a united direction for the future

Deliberation
Another one of Mannell et al.’s (2013) six planning principles is that establishing a vision is essential,
recognizing the enduring values and beliefs that a community wishes to maintain despite constant future
change. A vision is based on what community members believe to be fundamental truths about the quality
of life, with the purpose of uniting various groups, coordinating action, informing planning processes,
setting a united direction, and inspiring focused change. Importantly, developing a vision should also be a
creative, challenging, and exploratory process that involves “taking risks, questioning the current state of
affairs, and taking the community’s eyes away from the past and focusing them on the future” (Mannell et
al., 2013, p.137).

Page 45 of 76
Augmenting the notion of the planning principle of developing a united direction in a community, my
research suggests that this does not and should not necessarily equate to consensus amongst the individuals
within that community, nor does it mean that deliberation ends once the vision is established. Furthermore,
building on the idea that vision development should be a challenging and exploratory process, there may
be a need to critically examine some of the take-for-granted ideas and ideals that may form a vision in the
case of certain expectations around a ‘northern way of life’. Indeed, part of the visioning process when it
comes to housing may be a balancing act between an individual’s unique wants and needs and developing
a cohesive and equitable program for an entire community. Lepine explained that deciding which housing
options are appropriate for a given community is difficult, because every person is different, and their
wants and needs are different.

NND has expressed that one of their community’s immediate needs with regards to housing planning was
to address the needs of individuals in the community, as opposed to a standardized ‘one-size-fits-all’
approach. They stressed that housing is individualized, and thus it was important to find a way to take
individual hopes and dreams and integrate them into a diverse housing program – in order to accommodate
the multitude of different pathways to housing over a person’s lifetime. They want to move away from
developing a housing model that that recreates and perpetuates Department of Indian Affairs (DIA)
imposed systems of dependency in a standardized approach, and towards a more individualized model
based on citizens’ needs, creating an environment that allows people to explore their options and reduce
barriers to access the type of housing they want. NND is working to be able to provide this type of enabling
environment through the planning process, which means balancing the possibility for individualization
within a consistent overall program.

A few of the experts interviewed also reflected on the way individualization, or ability for individuals to
exercise agency over their homes, in choosing them or aspects of them, and having their voices heard and
listened to in decision-making processes, was an important theme in their work. For Cooke, after energy
and energy poverty: “The second biggest challenge is voice - being able to choose your own path in
housing, and decide what you want, and what suits your physical environment and your culture, and your
daily life”. This echoes NND’s objective of build with the community, rather than only for them, so that
citizens develop agency and a sense of pride over their homes. Cooke added that in their housing projects,
they like to know who’s going to be in the home before they start – even if it’s public housing – so that
they can work directly with the future resident of the home. Lepine enacted this approach in their work too,
so that once a planned new-build house was assigned to an individual, that individual was brought in to
participate in choosing the layout, picking colours, carpets, laminate flooring, cabinets, siding, and
shingles. Reflecting on the significance of the ability to choose, they add that “those little small things
made them feel like they owned the home, even though they didn’t”. Cooke agrees that individuals having

Page 46 of 76
meaningful choice over their surroundings and spaces should be an integral part of any housing planning
process: “Houses work better when they are asked for, instead of forced upon, and when they involve the
occupant before they’re designed”. McCartney also shares this perspective, adding:

“For instance, in housing if we’re designing a new house paradigm, say at the end of our entire
two-year process, we might wind up designing the exact same house that is in community right
now, but there will be a major difference: it will have been actively chosen, and a community
actively making a choice is worth a lot. Rather than it being dropped down from outer-space and
being told this is what you’re going to live in.”

This can be a balancing act though, explains Lepine, between wants and needs, and it is a matter of sitting
down with the individual and together figuring out what will work for them at that point in time. Indeed,
this process of deliberation over wants and needs could be part of the challenging and creative aspects of
defining a vision within planning processes. One aspect of involving people in the process of determining
their own housing, and shifting away from a system of provision and dependence, is having people
understand and make informed choices about the trade-offs, compromises, cost-benefits, and other
considerations at play. This can be a complicated process, considering the interconnected economic, social,
and environmental implications of those choices. NND staff relayed that it is important to consider how
integrate individual wants and needs with other community goals and considerations. Introducing the
concept of sustainability to the challenging and exploratory components of vision-making may enhance an
understanding of the connections but also the trade-offs between the different factors for long-term housing
solutions.

In working towards their goal of increasing quality housing stock and living opportunities in the C6
subdivision, NND had several new-builds constructed in this area. These new homes are quite large and
have tall ceilings, and while it remains unclear if the large footprint of the houses is actually meeting the
needs of the community, they are also very costly to heat in the winter, making them difficult to maintain
for low-income households (First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun, 2014). Lepine explains that while many
individuals may want the extra space in a home, they do not need it, and it comes with a cost. Their approach
to this process is to sit down with the individual and show them the pros and cons of different options and
components. This practice is important, they explain, because everyone wants the big house – but the reality
is that these large units cost a lot of money both in capital costs and operations and maintenance, because
of their significant heating and power demands. Fritz advocates that when considering affordability, do not
plan on a 3000 square foot house or “McMansion”, nor a tiny house either, but rather plan on a moderate
reasonable size house suited to the household.

Page 47 of 76
Another dimension of this debate is that while large footprint homes can be a large financial burden on the
occupant, they may also be in contradiction to what the environment can provide. Ecosystems, especially
in the north, are not set up to support large populations or people living spread out in resource-demanding
lifestyles (Sheppard & White, 2017). Indeed, what Canadians and Americans waste the most is space,
particularly outdoor space, highlights Whitehorse-based architect Jack Kobayashi, a problem which is only
made worse in the north. In the north, nature grows slowly and has to be nurtured, so when it is damaged
or altered, there are significant long-term effects (ibid). An interpretation of a ‘northern way of life’ is often
equated to the ability to have a single-family house on a 2- or 3-acre lot, yet this idea contributes to urban
sprawl, dependency on motor vehicles, and significant greenhouse gas emissions (Semple, 2013).
Ecosystems, particularly in the north, are not set up for everyone to live on an acreage and yet have all the
amenities of living in an urban society – this contradicts what the environment can provide (Sheppard &
White, 2017). While a large fully serviced dwelling on a large plot of plan may be desirable for many
reasons, it comes with long-term economic and environmental costs, particularly in the north where
housing operations costs are already high and the ecosystem has limited capacity to support large
populations or people spread out (ibid). One participant elaborates:

“One thing that is a problem, is that people think that we want our communities to be sustainable,
and we want to stay here in our traditional lands, and we want nice houses, and we want houses as
big as we see Americans living in – well that's not going to happen, because there’s nothing
sustainable about that.” (Stacey Fritz)

In the city of Whitehorse, Yukon, for example, ongoing attempts to bring higher density into the
community have been met with pushback, that this type of development ‘does not reflect the northern way
of life’ (Semple, 2013). In this context, Semple argues that the so-called ‘northern way of life’ means
having the ability to have a fully serviced single-family house on two or three acres so that sense of
‘wildness’ of the north can be experienced at home. However, this notion contributes to significant sprawl,
motor-vehicle dependency, and significant greenhouse gas emissions (ibid). This sensitivity to the ability
of the land to sustainably maintain a population into the future is one that is often overlooked in
conventional Western planning, but is fundamental in Indigenous planning approaches, explains Jojola
(2008). In land-based communities, including Indigenous communities, land tenure is characterized by
long and sustained patterns of ownership over successive generations, thus becoming the embodiment of
communities of people whose intent was to sustain the productivity and integrity of the land for future
generations. Given this legacy of land tenure, it becomes apparent how Indigenous worldviews evolved
that embodied values that are essential for attaining a balanced and symmetrical interrelationship between
people and the natural ecosystems they occupy (ibid).

Page 48 of 76
Lepine explains that wants and needs are two different things, and that community governments have to
try to take a balanced approach in creating some type of housing standard for individuals, which is never
going to be successful unless there is a certain level of acceptance from the community of the trade-offs
that form the standards within housing programs. Such standards should guide the housing design process
so such that acceptable environmental, economic, and social outcomes are part of the housing process.
Supporting the individual and community to understand and have the information to decide what trade-
offs are acceptable and desirable for them is one way of building a level of acceptance around the trade-
offs that form housing standards. If a government administration is creating any kind of housing program,
it is crucial to go to the community to have a conversation around it, and build understanding and support
before proceeding.

Thus, the challenging, creative, and exploratory processes of visioning in planning housing in the north
should include conversations around all the facets of sustainability, in particular critically questioning and
deliberating on preconceived notions of what the ideal northern lifestyle looks like. Such deliberation
around the trade-offs and impacts associated with different options is critical for generating understanding
and support around any vision or unified direction for housing.

Situating immediate action within the future vision

While developing a vision and united direction for what the future can and should be is necessary, Mannell
et al. (2013) also understand that planning also has to affect real and immediate change. The tension
between big picture forward-thinking multi-phase planning and addressing the housing crisis now is one
experienced by NND. As a result, NND is exploring ways of ensuring an integrated and holistic approach
to planning and engagement, while at the same time prioritizing the community’s needs on the ground in
real time. This dynamic of community planning needing to address urgent issues such as the housing
shortage while also aligning a long-term direction is one experienced and negotiated in Indigenous
communities across Canada and the north American Arctic. Indeed, many First Nations in Canada
frequently exist in a crisis-driven and reactive state – balancing limited resources with an overwhelming
array of urgent daily issues, including housing shortages, health problems, poverty, and unemployment
(Mannell et al., 2013). Fritz adds that this issue is constantly overwhelming for communities, because the
need is almost incalculable.

Most of the experts interviewed agreed that many of the ways that the housing shortage is addressed can
actually serve to perpetuate the housing crisis. Persaud explains that “because [the communities] are in
such a state of exigency all the time in relation to housing, they're forced into continuously creating stop-
gap solutions”. Community decision-makers are in a difficult position, in that the extreme need for housing
combined with limited capacity and budgetary resources, which puts pressure on lowering the quality of

Page 49 of 76
homes, explain Lepine and Cooke. These quick and efficient solutions might meet an immediate need, but
the lower quality means that they have a shorter lifespan, and that is “part of that vicious cycle that doesn’t
allow communities to think long-term about housing” (Anthony Persaud). Despite these limitations and
circumstances, Lepine argues that there is still a need to try to develop solutions that will meaningfully
address the gaps rather than only provide a temporary ‘Band-aid’. Speaking to the context of the north,
Pulla (2012) agrees that too often, housing programs and policy-makers react to the need instead of
planning for it. The result is that the same problems with housing are reproduced generation after
generation, because planning is not done properly (ibid). Fritz asserts: “There’s no easy answer there. But
providing really crappy housing, we know that’s not the answer”. McCartney agrees, advocating that the
paradigm of the building temporary housing and infrastructure has to change, because those ostensibly
temporary solutions are the only ones still there decades later. Thus, there is a need to align short term
action with long-term understanding:

“That is one of the key things when we’re talking about working with First Nations communities
and long-term planning. Even when working in the short-term, it has to be done with a lens that it
is going to be long-term. It’s not perfect, but it’s going to be there long-term.” (Shelagh McCartney)

When asked about how they approached meeting short term need versus undertaking long-term planning,
Persaud explained that it was a bit of both: you have to satisfy immediate needs while you plan for the
long-term. NND also expressed that there is a desire to develop creative solutions in order to do more with
the resources they have, in order to address both immediate needs and long-term needs, as well as how to
transition between the two. This is echoed in Mannell et al. (2013), who contend that in taking a
comprehensive approach to planning, thinking long term is equally important as immediate action.
McCartney reiterated this closely, explaining that their approach in research partnership with Indigenous
communities was to immediately begin building housing while simultaneously developing long term plans
– that these were two concurrent processes that should iteratively inform one another, rather than being
two distinct phases, one’s completion a precondition for the next. In fact, they add that it can be acutely
harmful to engage people in long-term discussions if they do not see tangible change on the ground:

"I do think you do damage, psychologically, engaging people in discussions about the long-term
and then they see absolutely nothing change on the ground. So if you look at our projects, you’ll
actually see that we are engaging in this discussion, while we’re actually building something.”
(Shelagh McCartney)

“We feel it's really important to bring money for on-the-ground change, while engaging in [long-
term] discussions. To us it goes hand-in-hand. […] The amount of damage you can do by having

Page 50 of 76
 really long-term discussions and not making change on-the-ground, I believe is irresponsible. You
need to do both.” (Shelagh McCartney)

For Persaud, it is a matter of creating the space within the community and within administrations to think
about housing ecosystems, long-term housing planning, and integrated housing planning. They go on to
recommend that if possible, and if they have the funding, communities could create a position in addition
to a housing manager whose job it is to think about and prepare for long-term housing planning and the
ways in which housing interconnects with other aspects of the community.

In summary, based on the suggestions of the experts interviewed and the insights from NND’s objectives
for planning, one way to reconcile the two seemingly conflicting yet important dimensions of short term
need and long term planning was to undertake both concurrently – to work on the addressing current needs
and the improving the day-to-day realities while at the same time envisioning and planning the long-term
strategy – rather than waiting to catch up on current needs first before starting the long-term plan. Thus,
establishing a united direction for the future should not only be a long-term planning exercise, but also spur
immediate action.

Implementation
Mannell et al. (2013) assert that the planning principles are intended to be notions about what needs to be
done during plan development and implementation, and with regards to establishing a united direction, a
plan should be a legacy that endures as elected officials change, staff come and go, and community
members move. However, they do not elaborate much on how a community’s ‘united direction’ might be
practically implemented over the long term. Given that planning is apt to produce yet another “report on a
shelf”, this aspect is crucial for communities to find success through their planning processes.

In undertaking new planning initiatives, NND is endeavouring to mitigate against building another ‘new
plan’ that is static and never gets implemented in any meaningful way. They have expressed that it is vital
to build in mechanisms for continuity, so that they do not lose sight of the plan as has been done in the
past. They are specifically looking for ways to ensure that a plan can withstand both staff and leadership
turnover while still incorporating good governance into the overall planning process. They suggested that
perhaps this includes incorporating some form of digital master record that tracks progress on an ongoing
basis based on self-developed performance indicators and can adjust with changing staff and
circumstances. In their visionary approach to future planning in their community, they aim to develop a
neighbourhood plan that would be undertaken over multiple years in a phased approach, potentially
resulting in an ‘evergreen’ or living document that is designed to be updated and revisited as priorities and
circumstances evolve. They are not interested in having a 500-page book that sits on the shelf and is ignored

Page 51 of 76
for 25 years be the result of a planning process, and thus are looking for ways to make any plans moving
forward flexible enough to be adjusted and pivot as circumstances and priorities change.

In a similar way that having a tracking mechanism may be a powerful tool for implementation,
incorporating mechanisms for evaluation and monitoring is an important but often overlooked component
of the planning process, according to a few of the experts interviewed. Fritz explained that there are rarely
enough resources allocated for a follow-up evaluation of a project, to go back and see how the project is
going and learn from it in a systematic way. They add that with housing, it is important to study how a
house worked for different people and bring this back to both the community and design team to build on
and improve from. Whatever evaluation data is gathered should also be in a format that the community can
use when planning for more housing projects or seeking federal funding to build more houses, so they
already know what works and what does not based on their own performance metrics.

Cooke shared that when they have an active research project with a community partner, they monitor the
house and gather data to see how the house is behaving. They then share this data with the occupant and
the community in digestible portions, to help them decide if it is working for them and if that particular
model is something they want to do again. In Jacobs’s pilot project, they monitored the house and systems
for a few years tracking temperature, humidity, air flow, overall comfort, to ensure it was functioning
properly. In this way they learned about the things they did right, including that the house was very
comfortable, but they also learned what not to do next time. Based on this monitoring process, they knew
not to replicate these errors when building the second project (their own house).

McCartney et al. (2020) echoes sentiments by NND and Fritz that any evaluation criteria and or
performance measures used should reflect local values and understandings, so as to accurately and
meaningfully reflect community members’ experiences. Standardized assessments are often based in
normative assumptions, and thus their findings have the potential to steer community policy towards
assimilatory formations and spatial practices (ibid).

7.3 Analysis 2: Additional Principles for the North and Planning

Practice
In attempting to bring Mannell et al.’s (2013) principles northwards in Canada, there are many additional
considerations for planning in this context that planners and other community practitioners should take into
account. Where the planning principles fell short in this regard, NND and the experts interviewed shared
stories and offered advice that may be able to augment planning practice with housing in northern
communities. These include designing for unique northern lifestyles, heat, transportation of materials,
maintainability and (dis)assembly, and operation. When combined, these factors some insight into how

Page 52 of 76
housing in northern Indigenous communities can be made more sustainable and culturally appropriate
overall, enhancing long-term financial viability, affordability and quality of life.

The second main aspect that is not emphasized in Mannell et al.’s (2013) principles is the role of the
planner, or way in which practice can be undertaken better in terms of the relationship between planning
practitioners and communities. Considering the historic role of planning processes in creating the existing
marginalization of Indigenous peoples, there is a need for reflexivity on the part of the planner in order to
first recognize and then alter these power imbalances (McCartney et al., 2016). Drawing lessons shared by
NND and the experts interviewed, my findings point to several ways that planners can decolonize their
chosen field of practice by centering reciprocal and respectful relationship-building, fostering an
environment of sharing and mutual learning, and creating safe spaces for listening. Thus, the following
section outlines the insights and particularities about planning housing in a northern context, as well as
lessons learned about what it means to be a planner meaningfully in service of communities.

7.3.1 Lessons from the north: dimensions of northern living and building
Design for how northern people live
Historically many First Nations just built with whatever the construction standard was in the past, which
was often imported from vastly different southern climates and thus resulted in housing that was
inappropriate for the harsh northern conditions, explains Fritz. Indeed, for decades, housing programs in
the north failed to respond to the climactic, logistic, and socio-cultural realities of the north’s diverse
peoples, often because they were determined by external imperatives or agencies (Sheppard & White,
2017). As northern communities plan for alternate pathways forward that break with the convention of
imported southern or imported models or structures designed to be temporary or stop-gap solutions, therein
lies an envisioning process that is concerned with what social and spatial forms this may take. Thus,
applying the principle of connecting physical and social structures in the context of the north may mean
connecting what is important or particular about northern lifestyles with the built forms that support them.

Beyond planning a structure that is suitable to the climactic and geographic realities of a given place,
‘building to the north’ also means building appropriately to how northern peoples live. For Cooke, that
means asking: “How does a northern house look, but also how does a northern house work?” (Aaron
Cooke). The practices of building a home, making a fire in the hearth, and being part of a household are
all enmeshed with other activities and events of life in the circumpolar north (Wishart, 2013). Cooke
contends that every culture everywhere, if you go far enough back in time, had homes built by the people
who were going to live in them, with a firm understanding of the materials at hand, and the microclimate,
and the culture that the home needed to suit. They elaborate:

Page 53 of 76
 “You should be able to see a picture of a northern house with no context and be able to tell if it’s a
northern house,[…] just like you would be with a tropical house. You should say okay, I have a
general idea, just by looking at what this house looks like, what kind of physical environment it's
trying to take part in on behalf of its occupants.” (Aaron Cooke)

Cooke adds that while colonialism disrupted this practice amongst northern Indigenous peoples, since the
1970s there has been a growing resurgence in interest in home-building practices suited to the context,
questioning: how do northern people live differently than southern people? What spaces should we be
providing? How do they look different? How do they perform differently?

“The way that northern people live should affect the spaces that they create for themselves in order
to live the way that they want, just like anyone else on Earth.” (Aaron Cooke)

Lepine explains that one example of how this could look is with Arctic entrances – or a bigger non-heated
enclosed porch area with a two-door system, so that when you enter the house, you do not get an influx of
cold air coming in. A lot of heat is lost when the door is opened to the outside, and so a double door system
is much more energy efficient than a single door system. This is an example of designing to the climate,
but also for how the occupant interacts with their house in a northern context. Building on this, the notion
of living memory is important to take into consideration when designing spaces for the north and for the
northerner. Cooke shares that “I’ll take an Elder’s opinion of which way the wind blows over an
anemometer any day. They will tell you which way the front door should face”. The cases of Arctic
entrances and local understandings of climactic conditions both exemplify ways in which social practices
and traditional knowledge connect with physical form and design. The interrelationship between climactic
conditions and socio-cultural lifeworlds in the north should be an integral consideration when considering
what future planning for the north means. By seeking to find solutions to meet the necessities of climactic
adaptation in the north, one is also part of engaging in finding solutions to other equally important aspects
of being human and living complex political lives (Wishart, 2013). Furthermore, by valuing and building
on local knowledge, such as an Elder’s knowledge of their microclimate, a plan or design will better reflect
local needs and be embraced by the community (Mannell et al., 2013).

Design for heat

The hearth, and its relationship with the home and household, is a crucial interdependency for human
habitation in the circumpolar north (Andersen, 2013). Speaking from the context of Alaska, Cooke
explains that when we design for our own climate, we are always talking about heat first: how will a
building be heated, and how will it retain heat. Furthermore, the envelope design, or what kind of coat is
put on the house, is more important than what is used to heat the house. Indeed, Semple (2013) agrees that
there is not a more efficient or cost-effective way to create energy than to save energy, and that such

Page 54 of 76
demand side savings are essential to addressing the future of sustainable northern housing. Lepine adds
that the cheapest and best way to get more energy efficiency in the home is to put more insulation in and
thus increase the ‘R’ value4 of the envelope (walls and roof) - in this practice, this is building to the north.
Summarizing the need to make decisions based on heat when building to the north, Cooke asserts:
“Reduced demand and more intelligent supply – those are the hallmarks of northern heat”. They further
argue that it makes no sense to have thin walls and then just upsize the heating appliance to call that a
northern home. They elaborate:

“We can heat with sun, we can heat with oil, we can heat with natural gas, we can heat with pixie
dust - but if we don’t have a good envelope then it's not a northern house. Because that's not how a
northern animal would work, it doesn’t eat more in the winter, it grows a thicker coat.” (Aaron
Cooke)

Design for transport

Quality housing is expensive to build in the north, and this high cost of building homes in the north is
driven in large part by the expense of building materials and transportation (Pulla, 2012). Indeed, CMHC
has noted that construction materials have to be “shipped great distances throughout a region where
environmental conditions place significant limitations on the use of land, water, and ice roads for
transportation. These constraints dramatically increase the costs of building materials and of construction
in the north” (CMHC, 2007, p.8). As a result, in many cases, the design of northern housing is dependent
upon transportation options (Pulla, 2012).

While NND has year-round road access and thus does not face logistical challenges to the same extent as
communities reliant on sealift, ice-roads, or air transport, they are nonetheless a small population rural and
remote community many hours’ drive from a major urban centre, and thus transportation of building
materials factors in very heavily to cost and logistics. Because of their distance from construction material
markets, if a part is missing, it can cause extensive delays and increased cost to the building process for
that part to be located and brought up. To mitigate this, NND have to build a facility to store building
materials in community, which is also a significant asset to construct, maintain, manage, and keep secure
year-round.

4
‘R’ Value: the capacity of an insulating material to resist heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power.

Page 55 of 76
Cooke shared some insights on the challenge of getting materials to site in the north within the planning
and design processes. In architecture school, there was never a class on how to get materials to site –
materials would be chosen only based on their suitability to the building. In the north however, a very large
proportion of construction costs are from logistics – and yet materials are not chosen based on how they
transport, which is problematic. If these processes were taken into greater consideration, costs could be
greatly reduced. One example of contending with the challenge of transportability is in a new prototype
their organization is developing, constructing a house that uses steel studs rather than wood. While wood
is a better insulator, they are finding a way to make a thermal break in the steel stud, and their design of
the steel stud can fit twice as many units for the same volume as their wood stud counterparts. When
materials have to travel by barge or by plane, space is at a premium, and thus minimizing this aspect may
make a massive difference in transport costs. They explain: “Now we’re thinking like northern people,
because we’re designing with transport of materials in mind as one of the primary constraints that we select
materials for” (Aaron Cooke).

Design for maintainability

One of the key ideas emerging from a multi-national research project’s discussions about homes, hearths,
and households in the circumpolar north was the idea that homes in the north never seem to be complete
(Wishart, 2013). The Gwich’in Elders they worked with were perpetually adding on to their cabins, and
would often disassemble parts of them and use the pieces elsewhere (ibid). Fritz explains that this is their
rationale for adhering to the principles of “design for disassembly”, which almost automatically makes it
designed for maintainability – because then parts can be taken off, replaced, repaired, and be part of a
circular economy. They add that in some cases designers try to reduce the amount of work a house takes
to upkeep by putting in ugly, industrial, “durable” materials, because of a perception that people will not
look after their homes. This is problematic on a number of levels, not only because it plays out harmful
stereotypes but also limits the ability for the occupant to actually undertake maintenance or adapt and reuse
building parts:

“Houses need to be maintained. You cannot design and build a house that will not require
maintenance – so design for maintenance, design for maintainability. And don’t make it so that
when they do have to maintain it they can’t [because] they need specialized knowledge, they need
specialized pieces or parts.” (Stacey Fritz)

One of the experts interviewed also expressed that the consideration of maintenance and maintainability
should be integrated into the overall plan and design of a house. Jacobs explained that in the planning
phase, they tried to factor in maintenance when they were designing all of the systems that the
neighbourhood would have – including estimating what the maintenance requirements and costs would be,

Page 56 of 76
to ensure that they wouldn’t be more than a conventional house. This echoes Minnery et al.’s (2000)
findings, that the sustainability of housing depends on the ability of the community to organise effective
maintenance—both to carry it out and to pay for it.

Design for occupation and operation

One of the main dimensions of the housing affordability challenge in the north is that northern housing is
unusually expensive to operate and maintain, according to Pulla (2012). For many First Nations
communities, housing is the biggest debt load they carry, and as a consequence housing is considered a
liability rather than an asset. Part of addressing affordability challenges in the northern context means
increasing focus on designing high-quality, energy-efficient homes that are built to codes and standards to
meet the diverse challenges of northern environments, with the aim of ensuring that operations and
maintenance costs can be reduced for the occupant or provider over the long-term (ibid). Related to the
discussion of upfront capital investment, a few of the experts interviewed repeated Pulla’s (2012) findings,
and felt strongly that planning for housing should also consider what the costs and operations would look
like for the occupant. As discussed in another section of the analysis, the housing shortage is putting a lot
of pressure on governments of all levels to implement fast solutions and build housing quickly – but once
that housing goes in, if it’s a liability for the occupant, there is going to be pressure the other way, explains
Cooke.

A good example that illustrates the way costs can be either transferred to or redirected from the occupant
is through energy (in)efficiency, and how well a house retains heat. For Cooke, the greatest challenge for
northern housing is first energy, then cost – and the challenge of cost is directly related to the challenge of
energy. In fact, they explain that a vast majority of rural communities in the northern regions of north
America face energy poverty, meaning that an unsustainable percentage of a household’s annual income
goes towards heating their homes. They argue that if one has a little money, one should spend it on the
envelope, not the appliance. Lepine echoes this view, explaining that it is cheaper to put in more insulation
than it is to create a new type of technology, that the capital payback of better more robust insulation was
about 5-10 years compared with an energy efficient heating system which was between 25-30 years. It is
for this that Cooke strongly advises to never choose a cheaper material, especially insulation, that will put
the burden of heating the home on the occupant – as this is one of the greatest recurring costs for individuals
and communities and is avoidable with appropriate and conscientious upfront investment. Fritz contends
that “The perfect home will be an asset for generations, not a burden that people inherit that screws them
over. We want it to be an heirloom, an asset”. They add:

“When you do have money, which [sometimes] comes from the government, make the most of that
money. Build the nicest, most durable, maintainable house you can – a house that is set up to be

Page 57 of 76
 off the grid, or have solar panels, etcetera – so that it doesn’t instantly become a financial burden
to whoever lives there forever.” (Stacey Fritz)

Having home ownership, and in turn personal investment and responsibility over housing, is detrimental
rather than empowering for the occupant if the home operation and maintenance costs are too high (Pulla,
2012). Thus, especially because operations and maintenance costs are higher in the north, the utmost
consideration should be taken with regards to what the operation and occupancy of the home will look like
when planning for socially and economically sustainable housing.

At what cost?
The planning considerations discussed above, in terms of designing for transportation, heating,
maintenance, and occupation, all come with a price tag, and can often result in increasing the upfront cost
of a house. However, all of these considerations also point to significant efficiencies, financial
sustainability, and savings over the long-term. For Pulla (2012), building sustainable quality northern
housing requires significant upfront capital investments. There are two main aspects to the housing
affordability challenge in the north: first, that quality houses are difficult and expensive to build; and
second, that northern housing is unusually expensive to operate and maintain (ibid). Indeed, Persaud
explains that the dilemma of balancing short-term versus long term cost effectiveness is a major challenge
facing Indigenous communities across Canada related to addressing the housing shortage. According to
Lepine, this is part of the bigger picture of community development, in always trying to find the balance
between budget versus product. Fritz advocates for spending more money upfront, even if that means fewer
houses:

“Affordable housing is not cheap, and it shouldn’t be. I really believe strongly in putting as much
money as you can in the design and upfront costs to make that house easy and affordable to live in.
And I think this is true with any products.” (Stacey Fritz)

Vehbi et al. (2007) contend that while there are a number of ways that housing can contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development objectives, this is a two-way process; because in the long-term,
the most cost-effective way to develop and maintain high-quality housing is to integrate principles of
sustainability into all parts of the housing development process. Persaud echoes this statement, explaining
that if communities are somehow able to figure out how to make a much larger initial investment, they will
see that they are actually saving money within 20 years – by building a house that could last more than a
century as opposed to just 10 years. While it will cost more to build a nice house, Fritz explains that it will
save the community over the years, not only in money but also in healthcare, and in heartache from seeing
a family living in a house that should be condemned. Echoing this sentiment, Lepine participant felt

Page 58 of 76
strongly that when administrators or leadership are only focused on budgets, then they’re not focused on
people, who should always be the first priority.

7.3.2 Role of the Planner

Decolonizing the role of the planner
Planning theorist Libby Porter (2010) calls for an “unlearning” of the colonial cultures of planning so that
planners become allies to Indigenous people and communities in pursuit of justice and reconciliation. Erfan
and Hemphill (2013) warn however that the narrative of external planner allies “empowering” Indigenous
communities to make better plans is problematic, because the power dynamic remains unidirectional.
Indeed, McCartney et al. (2016) found that Indigenous communities are too frequently understood as
beneficiaries to whom services must be provided, and the desire to “teach” planning perpetuates a colonial
legacy by “essentializing technical knowledge and erasing local understandings of the land and community
planning” (p.20). This, in order to break from a system that perpetuates asymmetrical power relations
towards one that places the locus of control on the community, there is a need for ongoing reflexivity on
the part of the outside planner (ibid).

Erfan and Hemphill (2013) consider that an external planner working with an indigenous community must
take on a “decolonizing role”, seeking to reverse the power relations so that the professional planner is
fully in service of the local community. They consider what a genuine decolonizing relationship between
outside or “ally” planner and community might look like instead, and suggest that the most successful
strategies for outsider planners committed to decolonization include: knowing to listen for a long time
before one speaks; being flexible and open to the community’s needs; and committing to capacity building
(ibid). In order to break the contributor-beneficiary dynamic and advance equity in external planner-
community relationships, the planner must relinquish their position as sole expert within the partnership,
explains McCartney et al. (2016). In relation to planning for housing, Fritz asserts that there is no room for
one person’s individual design ego to be involved when designing homes that work in a community.
Interview participant McCartney confirms that you cannot go into community giving your opinion, you
need to allow the opinion to develop and to actually develop from the community. Erfan and Hemphill
agree, arguing that one committed to decolonization in community planning has to let go of their own
agenda. It is for this that Cooke sees their organization’s role as giving people and communities the
technical tools to determine their own destiny, rather than telling them which option should suit them.

Relationship building
Another aspect of the decolonizing role of external planners is in the nature of partnerships and relationship
building. Interview participant McCartney asserts that the practice of how to build partnerships is
something that is not written about enough in the planning field. They share that one of the biggest lessons

Page 59 of 76
they’ve learned is the importance of relationships and how to be a good partner, because projects are
entirely based on relationships, and ultimately this is the largest determining factor that will allow a project
to go well or not. McCartney asserts that it is not enough to just assume that it is a given that people will
be respectful and do good work.

When NND was seeking to partner with a consultancy firm to undertake capital planning and
neighbourhood planning work, they emphasised that first and foremost they were looking for a long-term
partner in planning rather than a completed plan. Their reasoning for wanting to develop a relationship
with planning proponents in order for them to build better understanding of how NND’s organizations
functions and to mitigate against creating yet another “new plan” that is static and does not get meaningfully
integrated or implemented. This echoes McCartney et al.’s (2016) argument that learning should be
something that is mutually occurring, rather than a one-way transmission of “teachings” from planner to
community. NND intends, through relationship-building, that the planning firm will learn from them in a
more in-depth and nuanced way such that planning activities become living processes rather than simply a
final report that sits on a shelf. Persaud also echoes this sentiment, explaining that in their organization’s
work they’ve attempted to create strategic partnerships with Nations and work with them in long-term in-
depth relationships that allow them to work together on the whole suite of options that might be available
or are related to housing. They assert that a deeply embedded ecosystem approach to housing is not possible
to realize with surface-level short-term partnerships.

The learnings shared by NND and the experts interviewed also suggests the relevance of Wilson’s (2008)
principle of relational accountability as being foundational to decolonizing planner-community
relationships. NND expressed that in order to effectively work with a new planning partner, that partner
should make the best effort to meaningfully understand how they work as an organization, and thus make
any future planning work based in the community’s unique context and realities, rather than being based
on assumptions or ideals. Furthermore, the working relationship should be grounded in reciprocity – taking
an approach of being in service of the community rather than perpetuating a colonial power dynamic
whereby the planner teaches or contributes, and the community listens and receives. Communities such as
NND demanding relationship-building and relational accountability of its planners and partners echoes
Porter’s (2010) call for the planning discipline to engage more earnestly in relational processes with
Indigenous peoples, so that the profession might expand its repertoire.

Sharing and mutual learning

McCartney et al. (2016) explain that valuing the opportunity to listen and then share learnings serves to
build relationships and networks that can last beyond a meeting or project. They suggest that community
participants be encouraged to promote the vision or planning activity within their broader community,

Page 60 of 76
while the planner’s responsibility should be to share and amplify the community’s voices to policy makers
and other professionals outside the community. Sharing grows the project’s influence beyond the limited
bounds of those who were directly involved (ibid). In reflecting on their sustainable housing and
neighbourhood, which unfortunately didn’t move forward beyond the pilot project phase, Jacobs explains
that one of the biggest impacts of their project was the ripple effects which is empowering a new generation
to take up the helm of sustainability in their community. In the 2000s they had a dedicated group of
participants that were passionate about fulfilling the project, and even though they didn’t succeed in
building the neighbourhood in the end, a lot of those first people that were involved in the project have
gone off and done their own housing projects, gone to school for something related, implemented
components, or advised other people. This spread into the community at large, and other community
members have since built homes that used some of the sustainable concepts demonstrated in the pilot
project house. This speaks to the way that through project participants taking their visions and learnings
into their homes, friend groups and the broader community, the impact and influence of a single project
gained a much greater reach.

Over twenty years later, there is a younger generation who have come across information about the project
and are learning about what they were trying to do back then – so now there is this group of young people
who are saying that they want to see a project like this come back, to dust off documents, create something
inspired by the original project, with new technologies or innovative sustainable materials and energy
systems, and also using many of the cultural concepts they were trying to implement. Reflecting on the
impacts of their project, especially years later, Jacobs shares:

“Sometimes you can only get your version to a certain place and that’s as far as you can go, but
the ripple effects are still there from the benefits that can come from the work that was done. And
we’re still seeing those ripple effects today when the younger people are finding out about that
project and what we were trying to do back then.” (Lynn Jacobs)

This resurgence and renewed interest in the project by a younger generation exemplifies the way that
sharing the goals and lessons from the project are able to have influence in the long-term, in new and
unexpected ways.

Create space for listening

Erfan and Hemphill (2013) contend that listening is a vital principle of decolonizing planning, and in this
way the outside planner should enter with a beginner’s mind, not with an expert mentality. When teaching
is replaced by listening, the burden of learning is shifted towards the planner (McCartney et al., 2016). In
their work, Erfan and Hemphill (2013) found that community members shared in profound ways, once they
found the unassuming ear of a compassionate outsider. Cooke echoes this sentiment, explaining that for an

Page 61 of 76
outsider to work with communities respectfully, one needs to cultivate an anthropological sense of listening
to people, as well as leaving pre-suppositions at the door when trying to understand a person’s wants and
needs with regards to housing. Lepine also explains that it is very important to build good relationships
with individuals within the community, particularly by making the space to listen and have their voices
heard. In their former work in a First Nations government, they worked with many individuals who were
facing challenges including with housing, and would sometimes have a lot of anger directed towards those
responsible for housing. They learned that in working with these individuals over time, the relationship
changed dramatically. They would invite folks in who were upset and yelling and listen to them, and by
the time they left they were calm – explaining that creating this space for listening, even if they disagreed,
made a huge difference for those individuals and the relationship they had to their government.

8 Discussion
In this thesis, I sought to progress an understanding of how planning approaches to community housing in
northern Canada can be decolonized. In this undertaking, I interviewed experts and community
practitioners working with and researching Indigenous housing, as well as engaging in dialogue and some
action research with the First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun. Through this data gathering and analysis, I
aimed to explore what roles locals and outside experts played, what dimensions were important for
sustainable and culturally appropriate housing - particularly in the north, and what the implications for
planning practice were. I framed my analysis in terms of Mannell et al.’s (2013) principles of good
planning, both to draw out insights in the area of Indigenous planning practice as well as contribute to and
augment these principles as they apply to northern housing.

In this framework, I brought in topics that were not addressed in the principles, namely the housing sector
and northern geography. These additional subjects served to both test the broad applicability of the planning
principles, as well as augment them with further knowledge on these two specific planning contexts. The
following section discusses the contributions my research makes to principles of good planning and
understandings of a decolonization of planning practice. A table in Appendix 2 summarizes the findings
and recommendations discussed below. The principle of engaging a broad cross section of the community
agreed with my findings that there should be egalitarian representation across all community groups and
demographics. However, my findings added that there also needs to be a conversation around what
engagement methods should be used that meaningfully reflect a community’s cultural context, as well as
considering that as much as possible how to remove unequal power dynamics from engagement space.

With the principle of valuing local and traditional knowledge, my findings echoed Mannell et al.’s (2013)
that planning processes should build on local ideas and knowledge but at the same time have an openness
to new ideas and outside perspectives. Indeed, my findings pointed to the fact that awareness of alternatives

Page 62 of 76
and different options was a powerful tool in fostering innovation and creativity. My findings also added
that this practice was one actively being engaged with in northern communities in the form of hybridization
of imported material and technology with local needs and knowledge. The principle of reflecting on the
past and present, which includes identifying strengths and issues, connected strongly with my findings.
NND as well as a few experts emphasised the importance of comprehensive background research and
building from past work. The findings also pointed to the need to work within the practical capabilities of
a community, which can be done by identifying and then building upon resources and opportunities, and
addressing or planning around gaps. The principle of connecting physical and social structures perhaps
resonated most strongly with my findings. While Mannell et al. (2013) discuss this principle on a general
community scale, my findings pointed to this principle being very relevant for housing more specifically
too, as NND and all the experts interviewed conveyed that housing intersected with every other facet of
community life. However, there is a gap in how to identify and address such interconnections in practice,
and thus my findings suggest that systematic tools that identify core criteria or values be developed to
support this undertaking.

The principle of establishing a united direction for the future was one where there may be more dissonance
with my findings. The main area of agreement was in that thinking long term was equally important as
immediate action. While Mannell et al. (2013) do acknowledge that visioning is an exploratory and
challenging process, my findings also suggest that there is a need to take this a step further and engage in
more in-depth deliberation around possibilities, options, wants, needs, and realities. This is because there
is a need to foster understanding by the community around the trade-offs, balances, and practical
capabilities that come with planning, for instance in a housing program or residential development.
Furthermore, with little detail on how a ‘united direction’ might be practically implemented, my findings
may augment this principle by suggesting the need for monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that track a
plan’s progress and success on the community’s own terms.

Overall, my findings were in line with and even supplemented Mannell et al.’s (2013) principles of good
planning with Indigenous communities. However, the most notable gap in this theory was a lack of
consideration for northern context. Thus, in endeavouring to build knowledge on improving planning
practice in northern communities, I offer an additional category for my findings that suggest ways in which
planning, particularly for housing, can be approached in more sustainable and culturally appropriate ways.
One major finding highlighted the importance of considering how northern lifestyles differed from
southern ones, begging a reimagining of how a northern house works based on the interplay between
climactic conditions and socio-cultural practices and knowledge. Another key dimension that emerged
from the findings was that northern houses, or indeed entire settlements, should be designed for heat as the
central consideration. Additionally, built forms should be designed with transport in mind, because often

Page 63 of 76
construction materials have to be moved hundreds or even thousands of kilometres. Maintainability, or the
ability for structures to be repaired, disassembled, moved, renovated, or adapted by the community, is also
a critical consideration, because of the costs and logistical challenges associated with getting replacement
parts or bringing in qualified tradespeople. Furthermore, the cost of keeping up the house through operation
and maintenance is a pivotal consideration for ensuring that affordability can be maintained over the long-
term. Finally, all of these considerations need to be accounted for in tandem in the planning process in
order to ensure that the end products truly serve the individual occupants and community at large in
transformative and beneficial ways.

While Mannell et al. (2013) advocated strongly for the need for planning, there was limited reflection on
the positionality and role of external planners whose services and expertise Indigenous communities
frequently engage. Insights from my findings suggest some ways that these roles can be improved and
decolonized to be in better service of the community. It is apparent that “state”, “expert”, and in the case
of the north, “southern” driven planning models have mixed results and consequences for communities,
imposing inappropriate solutions and perpetuating colonial power dynamics. At the same time, Walker and
Mutunga (2013) argue that the planning profession has a critical role and ethical responsibility to not only
to confront its own complicity, but also support the recovery of Indigenous communities. As Mannell et
al. (2013) contend that there is an urgent need for planning in Indigenous communities, this calls for a
decolonized reimagining of the role of the planner.

One way this can be advanced is through the planning profession facilitating frameworks and tools to
connect the traditions of mainstream and Indigenous planning, which will in effect alter the course of its
own future (Walker & Matunga, 2013). A few of the experts interviewed reflected that the north is going
through a period of immense change, with traditional practices and local knowledge intersecting with
outside ideas and imported material and technology. While in the past, northern communities were forced
to take what they could get from the south and try to adapt, there is an opportunity in the contemporary to
empower communities to determine what identities, lifestyles, and structures they want to negotiate and
form for themselves. Planning as a practice may be well served to facilitate and support what this
articulation of hybrid structures, policies, and spatial patterns might look like for the north’s diverse
communities and the unique individuals within them. A connection of Indigenous and mainstream planning
frameworks, like the shifting intersections and hybridization of outside ideas and traditional knowledge,
alters the shared future of both. This thus contributes to what Sheppard and White (2017) consider as a
phenomenon of “future thinking” for the north. Furthermore, in reimagining the role of the planner, the
findings from the case study and experts interviewed also points to a need to reverse the power dynamics
between community and planner, so that the planner is fully in service of the community. There was an
emphasis on building respectful, reciprocal, and long-term working relationships.

Page 64 of 76
While many of my findings are particularly salient for the outside planner, they may also be relevant for
the local community planner. Indeed, Prusak et al. (2015) found that even community-led planning
initiatives could serve to reproduce settler planning processes, authority, and control. Thus, as hybrid
mainstream and Indigenous planning approaches emerge, a reflexivity on the part of the planner, local or
outside, is necessary to ensure that those harmful aspects get left behind.

9 Conclusion
Across Canada, Indigenous communities are advancing self-determination and reclaiming autonomy over
all aspects of community life, including planning. Given planning’s historical embeddedness in colonial
structures of power and dispossession, and concurrently with an urgent need for planning in Indigenous
communities, there is a pressing need for transformation within planning practice if it is to positively serve
communities for the future. My thesis sought to explore and provide insight into how planning approaches
to Indigenous community housing in northern Canada might be decolonized, so that ‘home’ can be once
again be a site of empowerment rather than marginalization.

My contribution to the conversations on planning in Indigenous communities is to augment these principles

of good planning with Indigenous communities from the perspective of housing and northern geographies,
and to suggest ways that planners might be able to support communities in their planning endeavours in
more respectful and beneficial, and thus decolonized, ways. Building on and adding to these planning
principles, my research suggests that a decolonized approach to housing planning is one that is inclusive
off all community groups, integrates multiple objectives and needs, is sensitive to the surrounding
landscape, builds on past work, sparks creativity and innovation, enables better understanding of both
possibilities and trade-offs, and creates tangible and immediate change on the ground while acting with a
long-term focus. Bringing this planning theory to the north, my research also finds that there are additional
and particular planning considerations that ought to be taken into account. Transportability, intuitive
heating, maintainability, and design that centres the lifestyle, knowledge, and evolving cultural needs of
the inhabitants are all tenets of planning northern homes, and are worth the higher upfront cost in the long
run.

Furthermore, for planning practice to be in better service of communities and support them in their self-
determined transformation, there is a need for significant and ongoing reflexivity on the part of the planner
to ensure that colonial systems of domination are not perpetuated. As planners, we often rely on established
tools and processes to guide our work. With the radical transformation that is occurring as communities
reclaim their self-sufficiency and self-determination, planning practice needs new and improved tools and
processes to redress the harms of colonialism and support communities in realizing their aspirations for
future generations. My research findings may add, in some small way, to the important conversation,

Page 65 of 76
speculation, imagination, and deliberation about what such a planning practice could look like. In order to
open the door to alternative trajectories in housing, planning as a profession has to be held to a higher
standard of practice that places itself in fully service of communities, empowers local and traditional
knowledge and aspirations, connects opportunities and bridges gaps, and enables the true breadth of
potential to emerge within, across, and between communities.

9.1 Implications and areas of future research

As McCartney et al. (2016) advocate that it should be within the planner’s purview to share and amplify
the community’s voices to policy makers and other professionals outside the community. This practice
could also extend and expand opportunities for mutual learning beyond the community, regionally or even
internationally. Just as (global) “south-south” cooperation, learning, and exchange has become a buzzword
amongst development policymakers (Lewis, 2017), another necessary shift to counteract decades of one-
way flow of policy, practice, structures, and information by southern federal agencies or other external
parties on Indigenous communities may be some form of “north-north” learning, or as Penikett (2017)
describes, strengthening the “east-west” links across the north to counter the south’s domination. On a
global scale this has been endeavoured in a number of ways, for instance northern and Indigenous
communities have been pursuing their own foreign policies, as witnessed by the proliferation of
circumpolar conferences on everything from agriculture to health to climate change (Penikett, 2017).

Furthermore, researching planning practices in the Far North may offer insight for advancing sustainable
urban development and planning elsewhere in the world. Larsen and Hemmersam (2018) highlight that
one of the dominant images of the Arctic is as a ‘canary’ for climate change. Furthermore, northern
ecosystems are highly sensitive and have low thresholds for accommodating resource intensive human
lifestyles (Sheppard & White, 2017). Considering these notions, sustainability in a northern setting may
mean something radically different than in other environments that are more resilient or where
environmental impacts are not as immediately pronounced. If northern sustainability has higher stakes,
because of the harsh climate, high costs, and sensitive ecosystem, then sustainable planning must more
comprehensively account for all of the relevant factors that contribute to genuinely sustainable urban forms.
For example, while the “greenwashing” of components of a sustainable building may pass relatively
unnoticed in Vancouver, if a building in Mayo does not have integrated ventilation, insulation, heating,
and plumbing systems, as well as incorporation of local knowledge and cultural practices such as food and
fuel storage, household structure, or weather variability, there can be detrimental, even lethal, consequences
for the occupant. In the north, sustainability is a matter of survival. Thus, planning sustainable northern
communities through empowering local voices and thinking systemically may serve as lessons and models
for what genuine sustainability means in practice.

Page 66 of 76
Works Cited
Andersen, D.G. (2013). Home, Hearth and Household in the Circumpolar North. In About the hearth:
Perspectives on the Home, Hearth, and Household in the circumpolar north (Eds. Anderson, D.G.,
Wishart, R.P., & Vaté, V.) Berghahn Books.
At Home in the North (AHIN) (2021). At Home in the North: New Partners For Northern Housing
Security And Homes. At Home in the North. https://athomeinthenorth.org/about/
Atkins, L. (2018a). Four Case Studies Exemplifying Best Practices in Architectural Co-design and
Building with First Nations. The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC). Retrieved
from: https://raic.org/raic/four-case-studies-exemplifying-best-practices-architectural-co-design-and-
building-first
Atkins, L. (2018b). Case Study: 4 Inuit Housing. The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC).
Retrieved from: https://raic.org/sites/raic.org/files/en_case_study_4.pdf
Baron, M., Riva, M., & Fletcher, C. (2019). The social determinants of healthy ageing in the Canadian
Arctic. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 78(1)
BC Housing (2018). Interim Guide to Indigenous Housing Development and Design
Bleiler, L. (2006). Mayo’s Golden Beginnings. In Heart of the Yukon: a natural and cultural history of
the Mayo area (eds. Bleiler, L., Burn, C., & O’Donoghue, M.). Mayo, Yukon: Village of Mayo
Blosser, J., Corum, N., Glenn, D., Kunkel, J., & Rosenthal, E. (2014). Best Practices In Tribal
Housing: Case Studies 2013. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy
Development & Research (PD&R)
Brant, D.J. & Irwin-Gibson, C. (2019). Urban, rural, & northern Indigenous housing: The next
step. Canadian Housing and Renewal Association
Butler, A., Crane, E., Hogg, S., Maddison, T., & Smith, T. (2017). Making a house a home:
Indigenous Engagement and Housing Design in B.C. BC Housing
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2007). Research Report – The Northern
Sustainable House: An Innovative Design Process. Ottawa: CMHC
Canadian Polar Commission (2014). Housing in the Canadian North: Recent Advances and Remaining
Knowledge Gaps and Research Opportunities. Retrieved
from http://www.polarcom.gc.ca/sites/default/files/housing_summary_1.pdf
Carter, T. (1993). Evolution of Northern Housing Policy. Northern Studies 2
Castillo, V.E., Schreyer, C., & southwick, T. (2020). ECHO: Ethnographic, cultural, and historical
overview of Yukon’s First Peoples. Institute for Community Engaged Research Press.
Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources (2004). Aboriginal Housing Assessment: Community
Design Needs & Preferences and Application of Local Materials. Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC).
Christensen, J. (2012). "They want a different life": Rural northern settlement dynamics and pathways
to homelessness in Yellowknife and Inuvik, Northwest Territories. The Canadian Geographer, 56(4), 419–
438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00439.x
Christensen, J. (2013). ‘Our home, our way of life: spiritual homelessness and the sociocultural
dimensions of Indigenous homelessness in the Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada, Social & Cultural
Geography, 14:7, 804-828, DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2013.822089
Christensen, J. (2016). Indigenous housing and health in the Canadian North: Revisiting cultural safety.
Health & Place, 40, 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.05.003

Page 67 of 76
Christensen, J., Arnfjord, S., Carraher, S., & Hedwig, T. (2017). Homelessness across Alaska, the
Canadian North and Greenland. Arctic, 70(4), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4680
Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative (2017) New Housing Guide: : A Primer for
Building Culturally-Appropriate, High-Performance Homes in the Great Bear Region. Coastal First
Nations Great Bear Initiative. Retrieved from https://coastalfirstnations.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/CFN-New-Housing-Guide_R05.pdf
Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC) (2010). The Sustainable Northern Shelters (SNS)
Program. Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC). Retrieved
from: https://gwscientific.com/cchrc/sns/anaktuvuk-pass/index.shtml
Cook, J. (2008). Building on Traditions of the Past: The Rise and Resurgence of First Nations
CCP. Plan Canada, 48(2), p.13-16
Cook, J. (2013). Honoring Indigenous Planning: Reviewing our commitment to action. Plan Canada
53(2)
Dawson, P.C. (2003). An Examination of the Use of Domestic Space by Inuit Families Living in Arviat,
Nunavut. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Dawson, P.C. (1995) "Unsympathetic users": an ethnoarchaeological examination of Inuit responses to
the changing nature of the built environment, Arctic 48(1): 71-80
Dawson, P.C. (2001) Interpreting variability in Thule Inuit architecture: a case study from the Canadian
High Arctic, American Antiquity 66(3): 453-470
Dawson, P.C. (2006) Seeing like an Inuit family: the relationship between house form and culture in
Northern Canada, Etudes/Inuit/Studies 30(2): 113-135
Dawson, P.C. (2008) Unfriendly architecture: using observations of Inuit spatial behavior to design
culturally sustaining houses in Arctic Canada, Housing Studies 23 (1): 111-128
Deane, L. & Smoke, E. (2010) Designing Affordable Housing with Cree, Anishinabe, and Metis
People. Canadian Journal of Urban Research. 19(1) p 51-70.
Drossos, A. (2003). The Housing Conditions of Aboriginal Canadians: A determinants of Health
Framework and Current Policy Analysis [Briefing document]. Family Network, p.1-40
EcoTrust Canada (2015). Building for the Future - Case Study: Quarter Long House in Clayoquot
Sound. EcoTrust Canada.
Erfan, A. & Hemphill, J. (2013). Indigenizing and Decolonizing: An Alliance Story. Plan Canada 53(2)
Fien, J., Charlesworth, E., & Lee, G., Morris, D., Baker, D., & Grice, T. (2008). Towards a design
framework for remote Indigenous housing. AHURI Final Report.
Fineblit, E. (2015). Indigenizing Housing: A Guide to Providing Culturally‐Appropriate Housing
for Aboriginal Communities in British Columbia. Aboriginal Housing Management Association
(AHMA)
First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun (2008). Na-Cho Nyák Dun Tan Sothan—A Good Path Integrated
Community Sustainability Plan. Retrieved
from http://www.infrastructure.gov.yk.ca/pdf/nacho_nyak_dun_icsp.pdf
First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun (2014). Housing Strategy. First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun.
First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun (2015). 2015 - 2025 Capital Plan. First Nation of Na-cho Nyäk Dun
First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun (2021). History. First Nation of Na-
Cho Nyäk Dun. https://www.nndfn.com/history/

Page 68 of 76
Forester, J. (1982). Planning in the Face of Power. Journal of the American Planning Association,
48(1), p.67-80
Gibb, K. & Marsh, A. (2019). Housing and systems thinking. UK Collaborative Centre for Housing
Evidence.
Goldhar, C., Bell, T. & Sheldon, T. (2013): Learning from others: Recommendations for best practices
in adaptation of the built environment to changing climate and environment in Nunatsiavut. In Goldhar,
C., Bell, T. & Sheldon, T. (eds). Nunatsiavut Government.
Gotthard, R. (2006). The Ancient History of the Na-Cho Nyäk Dun Traditional Territory. In Heart of
the Yukon: a natural and cultural history of the Mayo area (eds. Bleiler, L., Burn, C., & O’Donoghue,
M.). Mayo, Yukon: Village of Mayo
Government of Canada, Council for Yukon Indians, & Government of Yukon (1993). Umbrella
final agreement between the government of Canada, the Council for Yukon Indians, and the government
of the Yukon. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
Government of Canada, First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, & Government of Yukon (1995). First
Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
Habermas, J. (1987). Theory of communicative action, Vol II: Lifeworld and system: A critique of
functionalist reason (Trans: Thomas McCarthy). Boston: Beacon.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms (Trans: W. Rehg). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hammer, D., & Schifter, D. (2001). Practices of inquiry in teaching and research. Cognition and
Instruction, 19(4), p.441–478.
Harivel, C. & Anderson, C. (2008). First Nations Comprehensive Community Planning: A Good
Investment for Canada. Plan Canada, 48(2), p.29-31
Havelka, S. (2018). Building with IQ (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit): The Rise of a Hybrid Design Tradition
in Canada’s Eastern Arctic [Doctoral Dissertation, McGill University].
Hennessey, R., Stuart, S. & Duerden, F., (2012). Mayo Region Climate Change Adaptation
Plan. Northern Climate ExChange, Yukon Research Centre, & Yukon College. Retrieved
from https://www.yukonu.ca/sites/default/files/inline-files/MayoCAP_for_web.pdf
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What
would it look like and how can we get one?. Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.
Hildebrand, J. (2020). Supporting First Nations in British Columbia to Implement Culturally-
Appropriate and Energy-Efficient New Construction. Prepared for BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and
Petroleum Resources and BC Hydro.
Hoskins, R., Te Nana, H., Rhodes, P., Guy, P., & Sage, C. (2002). Ki te Hau Kainga: New
Perspectives on Maori Housing Solutions. A Design Guide Prepared for Housing New Zealand
Corporation.
Hsiung, P. (2010). Reflexivity: A Process of Reflection. Retrieved
from http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~pchsiung/LAL/reflexivity
Huxley, M. (2002). Governmentality, Gender, Planning: A Foucauldian Perspective. In Planning
Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory (eds. Allmendinger, P. & Tewdwr-Jones, M), p.136-135.
London: Routledge
Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) (2008). Building the Future: Yukon First nations
Self-Government. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Page 69 of 76
Jacobs, L.K. (2002). Growing a Sustainable Community from our Roots: Mohawk Experiences in
Sustainable Housing – The Kanata Healthy Housing Project. The Journal of Aboriginal Economic
Development 3(1)
Jojola, T. (2008). Indigenous Planning – An Emerging Context. Canadian Journal of Urban Research,
17(1), p.37-47
Kake, J. & Paul, J. (2018). Evaluating the application of māori design principles to
urban neighbourhood development projects to develop a kaupapa māori design framework and
assessment tools. Urbanism New Zealand Conference, Wellington, New Zealand: BBHTC
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical
Participatory Action Research. Singapore: Springer Science + Business Media
Knotsch, C., & Kinnon, D. (2011). If Not Now ... When? Addressing the Ongoing Inuit Housing
Crisis In Canada., Ottawa, Ontario: National Aboriginal Health Organization.
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. SAGE Publications, Ltd
Larcombe, L., Coar, L., Singer, M., Denechezhe, L., Yassie, E., Powderhorn, T., Antsanen, J.,
Kinew, K.A., & Orr, P. (2020). Sekuwe (My House): building health equity through Dene First Nations
housing designs. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 79(1)
Larsen, J.K., & Hemmersam, P. (2018) What is the future North?. In Future North : The Changing
Arctic Landscapes (eds. Larsen, J.K., and Hemmersam, P.). Routledge,. ProQuest Ebook Central
Lewis, D. (2017). Should We Pay More Attention to south-North Learning?. Human Service
Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance 41(4), 327-331
MacTavish, T., Marceau, M. O., Optis, M., Shaw, K., Stephenson, P., & Wild, P. (2012). A
participatory process for the design of housing for a First Nations Community. Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment, 27(2), 207–224
Mannell, L., Palermo, F. & Smith, C. (2013). Community-Based and Comprehensive: Reflections on
Planning and Action in First Nations. In Reclaiming Indigenous Planning (eds. Walker, R., & Jojola,
T.). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, p.113-140
Matunga, H. (2013). Theorizing Indigenous Planning. In Reclaiming Indigenous Planning (eds. Walker,
R., & Jojola, T.). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, p.3-32
Mccartney, S., Atlookan, E., Sugarhead, L., Herskovits, J. & Trnavsky, K. (2016). (Re)imagining
Our Community: Changing the Planner and Planning with First Nations Youth. Plan
Canada, 56(4), p.18-21
McCartney, S., Herskovits, J., & Hintelmann, L. (2020). Developing occupant-based understandings
of crowding: a study of residential self-assessment in Eabametoong First Nation. Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-020-09768-y
McCartney, S. (2016). Re-Thinking Housing: From Physical Manifestation of Colonial Planning Policy
to Community-Focused Networks. Urban Planning, 1(4), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v1i4.737
McCartney, S. (2017, June 22). Design of Everyday Places and Homes Can Heal
Wounds [video]. TEDxRyersonU. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF2WI42WlAE
Minnery, J., Manicaros, M., & Lindfield, M. (2000) Remote Area Indigenous Housing: Towards a
Model of Best Practice,.Housing Studies 15(2), 237-258, DOI: 10.1080/02673030082379
Monk, L. (2013). Decolonizing Home: A re-conceptualization of First Nations' housing in
Canada [Doctoral dissertation, Queen’s University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Page 70 of 76
Morris, M., Good, J., & Halseth, G. (2020). Building Foundations for the Future: Housing, community
development, and economic opportunity in non-metropolitan Canada. Community Development Institute
(CDI)
Na-Cho Nyäk Dun Development Corporation (2017). Home of the Big River People. Na-
Cho Nyäk Dun Development Corporation. https://www.nnddc.ca/
National Aboriginal Economic Development Board (NAEDB) (2016). Recommendations on Northern
Infrastructure to Support Economic Development. National Aboriginal Economic Development Board.
Retrieved from http://www.naedb-cndea.com/reports/recommendations-on-northern-infrastructure.pdf
Nicol, L.A. & Knoepfel, P. (2014) Resilient housing: a new resource-oriented approach. Building
Research & Information, 42(2), 229-239
Nilsen, E.B. (2005). Rethinking Place in Planning: Opportunities in Northern and Aboriginal Planning
in Nunavut, Canada. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 14(1), 22–37.
“Northern Housing Forum” (2019). Northern Housing Policy Recommendations. Polar Knowledge
Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/polar-knowledge/northern-housing-forum-knowledge-
products/policy-recommendations.html
“Northern Policy Hackathon” (2019a). Northern Policy Hackathon: Recommendations on Northern
Housing. The Gordon Foundation.
“Northern Policy Hackathon” (2019b). Northern Policy Hackathon (NPH): Background Research. The
Gordon Foundation.
Olsen, S. (2016). Making Poverty: A History of On-reserve Housing Programs, 1930-1996 [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Victoria].
Penikett, T. (2017). Hunting the Northern Character. Vancouver, BC: Purich Books.
Peter, D.L., Hogan, J. & the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun Lands and Resources
Department (2006). The History of the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun. In Heart of the Yukon: a
natural and cultural history of the Mayo area (eds. Bleiler, L., Burn, C., & O’Donoghue, M.). Mayo,
Yukon: Village of Mayo
Phillips, R., & Johns, J. (2012): Interviewing for Fieldwork. Fieldwork for human geography. Los
Angeles: Sage. p.143-165.
Porter, L. (2010). Unlearning the colonial cultures of planning. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Prusak, S.Y., Walker, R., & Innes, R. (2015). Toward Indigenous Planning? First Nation Community
Planning in Saskatchewan, Canada. Journal of Planning Education and Research
Pulla, S. (2012). Framing Sustainable Options for Housing in Canada’s North. Ottawa, ON: Centre for
the North.
Rapley, T. R. (2001): The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: some considerations
on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research 1(3), p.303-323.
Saija, L., De Leo, D., Forester, J., Pappalardo, G., Rocha, I., Sletto, B., Corburn, J., Mwau,
B., & Magnaghi, A. (2017). Learning from practice: environmental and community mapping as
participatory action research in planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 127-153,
Sandercock, L. (2004) Commentary: indigenous planning and the burden of colonialism, Planning
Theory & Practice 5(1),118-124
Saville-Smith, K., Lietz, K., Bijoux, D., & Hoell, M. (2005). NH101 Neighbourhood sustainability
framework: prototype. Beacon Pathway Limited.
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic
Books

Page 71 of 76
Semple, W. (2013). Best Practices in Sustainable Northern Housing. in Learning from others:
Recommendations for best practices in adaptation of the built environment to changing climate and
environment in Nunatsiavut (eds. Goldhar, C., Bell, T. & Sheldon, T.). Nunatsiavut Government.
Senate Canada (2015). Housing on First Nations Reserves: Challenges and Successes. Interim Report
of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
Sheppard, L. & White, M. (2017). Many Norths: Spatial Practice in a Polar Territory. New
York: Actar Publishers
Stratos Inc. (2018). Northern Housing Forum 2018: Forum Summary Report. Polar Knowledge
Canada.
Taylor, G. (2011). Assessment of Sustainable and Cultural Housing Design in the Clayoquot Sound First
Nations: A Decision Framework for Residential Housing Developments. Ecotrust Canada.
Townsend, A. (2014). Weaving the Threads of Practice and Research: Reflections on Fundamental
Features of Action Research. In Promoting Change through Action Research (eds. Rauch, F., Schuster,
A., Stern, T., Pribila, M., & Townsend, A.), 7-22. Sense Publishers.
Vehbi, B.O., Hoskara, E., & Hoskara, S.Ö. (2010). A Theoretical Approach for Assessing
Sustainability in Housing Environments. Open House International, 35(1), 26–36.
Weather Spark (n.d.) Average Weather in Montréal Canada. Weather Spark. Retrieved
from: https://weatherspark.com/y/25077/Average-Weather-in-Montr%C3%A9al-Canada-Year-
Round#:~:text=In%20Montr%C3%A9al%2C%20the%20summers%20are,or%20above%2087%C2%B0
F.
Village of Mayo (2016). Village of Mayo Official Community Plan. Retrieved
from https://villageofmayo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Official-Community-Plan-2016-1.pdf
Village of Mayo (n.d.). About Mayo. Village of Mayo. https://villageofmayo.ca/about-mayo/
Walker, R. & Matunga, H. (2013). Re-situating Indigenous Planning in the City. Plan Canada 53(2),
p.15-17
Wilde, D. (2020). Design Research Education and Global Concerns. She Ji: The Journal of Design,
Economics, and Innovation, 6(2), p.170-212
Wilson, A. (2018, April 19). Dr. Alex Wilson - One House Many Nations: Hacking Colonial Systems of
Dominance [Video]. Youtube. https://youtu.be/opybdEQ5QiY
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Halifax & Winnipeg:
Fernwood Publishing
Wishart, R.P. (2013). Building a Home for Circumpolar Architecture: An Introduction. In About the
hearth: Perspectives on the Home, Hearth, and Household in the circumpolar north (Eds. Anderson,
D.G., Wishart, R.P., & Vaté, V.) Berghahn Books.
Wong, D. (2011a). Green and Culturally Appropriate Building Design for Clayoquot Sound First
Nations: Part 1. Discovery. Ecotrust Canada.
Wong, D. (2011b). Green and Culturally Appropriate Building Design for Clayoquot Sound First
Nations: Part 2. Prototype Home Design. Ecotrust Canada.
Yukon Bureau of Statistics (2016). Aboriginal Peoples Census 2016. Yukon Bureau of Statistics.
Retrieved from https://yukon.ca/sites/yukon.ca/files/ybs/fin-aboriginal-peoples-census-2016.pdf
Yin, R.K. (1981). The Case Study as a Serious Research Strategy. Knowledge Creation, Diffusion,
Utilization, 13(1), p.97-114
Zanasi, L. and Pomeroy, S. (2013). Comprehensive Review and Assessment of Housing Issues in Yukon.
Final Report. Presented to Yukon Housing Corporation. Luigi Zanasi and Focus Consulting Inc.

Page 72 of 76
Appendix 1: Interview Guide
Summary:
Thank you for taking part in my research! This research will investigate the challenges and opportunities
in providing access to affordable, sustainable, and appropriate housing in the context of rural, Northern,
and Indigenous communities in Canada. In particular, this project will research the use of local resources,
methods of enabling financially viable and affordable housing options, how community knowledge and
values can be integrated into decision-making.

The following questions make up the general structure of the interview, and are organized by theme.
Many of the questions are intentionally broad, with the purpose that we will delve into the details and
implications of the topic area from your perspective. I’ll only ask you to consider the questions from your
own experience, rather than trying to answer for all cases and contexts. I am interviewing experts such as
yourself from a diversity of backgrounds, so not all questions will be equally relevant to everyone – if
there are questions or topics you would prefer not to address, we can skip them.

Introduction
1. Can you briefly describe how you/your organization works with housing in the context of rural,
Northern, and/or Indigenous communities? What kind of housing projects have you been
involved with?

Challenges
2. What are some of the main challenges associated with housing provision in the rural, Northern,
and/or Indigenous communities you’ve worked with?

Prioritizing objectives
3. Based on your experience, what are the most important things that communities should take into
consideration when planning for housing?
4. How do you determine if a housing option/model will meet individual and community wants and
needs?
5. Is there a need to balance individual wants and needs with community considerations or
limitations?
a. How have you approached these trade-offs?
b. Can you give some examples?
c. (ex. members wanting large private lots, but there is a limited amount of land and high servicing
costs)
6. If relevant, how have you approached integrating the following considerations into housing:
a. Cold climate
b. Culturally appropriate design
c. Energy (alternative, efficient)
d. Environmental sustainability/ecological footprint (ex. water conservation)
e. Health and wellness (ex. mold prevention, accessibility)

Affordability and Financial Sustainability

7. Do you consider short-term and long-term cost effectiveness?
a. If yes, how so?
b. (ex. up-front cost of solar panels vs lifetime utility cost savings)
8. How have you approached/do you approach making housing affordable for residents, and
financially viable for providers (cost recovery)?
a. What types of programs can support this? (ex. Rent-to-own, flexible financing)
b. How have you approached/do you address the higher costs (transportation, labour, skilled trades,
materials) associated with northern/rural construction? Are there ways these can be alleviated?

Page 73 of 76
 9. In your view, should home ownership options be a priority in community housing programs? If
so, why?
10. How can home ownership be made more attainable and accessible for more people?

Governance
11. Describe the decision-making process around determining housing directions and options that
you used in your housing project(s).
a. When and how is community input integrated? How have you approached seeking out and
integrating community input?
b. What are the key decision points? (ex. settlement design, house design, training and education,
construction and project management, post-occupancy management)
c. Is there an internal decision-making process, policy, or pathway that you follow?
12. How can a community housing program account for the diversity of community wants and
needs?
a. Can these wants/needs be met by offering different types of tenure options?
b. What does this look like?

Local Resources
13. How have you approached making use of local resources and assets?
a. What are some creative or effective ways you have used (or created) local resources?
14. What was your process to identify and/or address local resource gaps?

Sense of Place
15. What are some of the most effective ways of fostering pride and responsibility over housing
amongst residents?
a. How can a community support their members in making their house a home?

Successes and Lessons Learned

16. If some time has passed since your housing project was completed, how is the project going
now?
17. What are some of the lessons learned along the way?
a. How could your project/approach be improved or built upon moving forward?
b. What types of things would have to be taken into consideration before trying to copy your
project(s) in another community?
18. What are some of the major successes of the housing project?
a. What does it mean to have a “successful” project?
b. How do you determine if a housing project is successful (i.e. that it achieved what it set out to
do)?
c. What were some of the keys factors necessary to achieving them?

Final Word
19. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Page 74 of 76
 Appendix 2: Summary of Findings
Planning principle Recommendations
o Engagement should be interdisciplinary – all groups represented
o Prioritize meaningful community involvement throughout entire process, rather than only
Engage a broad producing a final report or plan
cross section of the o Consider the power dynamics of community engagement, ensure engagement is structurally
community egalitarian so all voices are heard
o Engage in conversations around what culturally relevant engagement might look like – this is
different in each community
Value local and
o Openness to both local and outside ideas paves way for new hybrid forms
traditional
o Knowledge of different possibilities helps inspire new local ideas
knowledge and
outside ideas
o The planner should do as much background research as possible, and build on past work rather
than starting with a blank slate
Reflect on the past o Comprehensive background knowledge builds an understanding of unique context of each
and present community, in order to prevent a one-size-fits-all standardized approach
o Assess the community’s practical possibilities and capabilities, to make most of opportunities and
plan effectively for gaps
o Buildings and communities operate in a system, and planning needs to integrate and consider
many components together
o Housing is not just shelter, but also about the land: settlement patterns of residential development
should consider which areas to develop and which to protect, as well as arrange in spatial pattern
Connect the relevant to community
physical and social o Taking on all components in a system at once can be overwhelming. Start by work in one layer
(ex. housing), create a dedicated position for considering the system long-term, and develop
systematic tools such as a checklist to ensure important ideas kept at forefront
o Housing should have many value added outcomes. Do not just build a house, because there is
opportunity to advance and benefit other community priorities
o Visioning should be a challenging, exploratory, as well as deliberative process. There is a need
and opportunity to negotiate individual and community considerations, wants versus needs, and
sustainability considerations
Establish a united o Deliberation around the trade-offs and impacts associated with different options is critical
direction for the for generating understanding and support around any vision or unified direction for housing.
future o Immediate action should be taken alongside long-term planning directions, and the implications of
immediate actions need to be considered in the long-term too
o Visions, directions, and plans need implementation strategies, or ways to track, monitor, and
evaluate the plan’s progress based on what the community wants and values
o Value the process as much as the end product
o Consider the relationship between climactic, logistic, and socio-cultural realities in order to
Northern living and understand how a northern house should work
building o When designing for northern housing, heat, transport, and operations should be primary decision
factors in cost-benefit analysis
o Reverse the power relations wherever possible, so that the planner is fully in service of the
Role of the planner community
o Let go of preconceived ideas or agenda, and allow an opinion to emerge from the community

Page 75 of 76
o Provide community the tools to determine their own destiny, but do not impose technical
knowledge as the only way to make plans
o Relationship building is the most important factor in a project’s success, and it needs to be long-
term
o Engage in mutual learning and reciprocity, rather than a one-way transmission of information
o Advocate for and amplify community voices externally
o Create space for listening
o Sharing and promoting the planning process can have positive short-term impacts and long-term
ripple effects

Page 76 of 76