Dr Shaneen Fantin, James Cook University (paper): Reminding me of home. Culturally responsive design...

5th Prison Planning, Design, Construction and Maintenance – 9-10th Dec, 2013. Melbourne

Session Title: The Plan Phase: what do we need and where?

Dr Shaneen Fantin, Director, People Oriented Design and Adjunct Associate Professor: School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James

Cook University, Cairns, Queensland.

1

3.50 – 4:30pm

Reminding me of home. Culturally responsive design of landscape and

external environments in Indigenous secure and health facilities.

Abstract

In many states of Australia, Aboriginal prisoners make a large portion of the prison

population. In Queensland it is about 30% (ABS 2013), but in prisons in remote areas such

as far north Queensland the percentage is much higher. How can the landscape and outdoor

environments in such facilities be designed to recognise and support Aboriginal cultural and

social practices? Culturally and socially responsive site planning and design can create

opportunities for rehabilitation of prisoners through re-connecting with country, enabling

Aboriginal social practices and maintaining ethno-botanical knowledge. A number of case

studies will be provided.

1.0 Introduction

Australia is a vast country with a relatively small Indigenous population, less than 3% (ABS

2013). However the representation of Aboriginal people in prisons in Australia is

approximately 30% (ABS 2013). The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody

(RCIADIC) stated that “[t]here are important cultural differences between Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal detainees for which accommodation can, and should be made in the context of

custodial procedures and cell design” (Johnston 1991 Vol 3 p.235).

This paper is written from the perspective of architecture and people-environment studies,

and how culturally responsive design of built environments and landscape can create

supportive and potentially rehabilitative environments for users. It draws on literature from

People Environment Studies, Environmental Psychology and Intercultural Design Practice

(Rapoport 1982, Martin and Casault 2005, Bechtel and Churchman 2012). In some parts of

the paper I use the term Aboriginal and in other parts Indigenous. This is intentional as one

case study is from remote Western Australia where the use of the word Indigenous is not

appropriate. Whereas the other case study is from far north Queensland where Indigenous is

accepted as a term and regularly interchanged with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.

I am an architect with a PhD in Architecture and Aboriginal Environments and have been

working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on health, housing and secure

projects since 1995. I am predominantly a practitioner, but with a keen interest in research

and analysis. Today’s paper presents two case studies. One of a prison and one of a health

facility which incorporate design principles that aim to provide supportive environments for

Aboriginal inmates and patients.

The key questions that are at the forefront of this work are,

Why should we consider cultural imperatives in the design of custodial and health

facilities?





2

How can we respond to social and cultural imperatives of Aboriginal people in the

design of built environments? And,

Is there any evidence to suggest that culturally responsive design contributes to

rehabilitation and wellbeing?

1.1 The relationship between culture and design

Culture is conceptualised by many scholars as existing in both cognitive and physical

dimensions; it encapsulates everything one thinks and feels, and how one behaves or

represents thoughts and feelings in a social and spatial environment. Culture is learning:

every individual learns from his or her environment how to speak, behave and think. All of

the influences and experiences in a person’s life contribute to their self and the cultural

framework from which they view and interact with the world.

Amos Rapoport (1982, 1986), who has undertaken extensive studies on the relationship

between built form and culture, states, “Culture is ultimately translated into form through

what people do as a result of what is in their heads and within the constraints of their

situation” (Rapoport 1986:162). What this suggests is that environmental influences that

affect people’s thought and behaviour patterns can be seen in their spatial and built

environments. Robinson (1989:253) states that built forms are manifestations of culture; they

are “mirrors of cultural values” and allow people to compare cultural aspirations with

achievements.

The relationship of built form and culture can be expressed in a number of ways: as a

symbolic representation of beliefs and practices, in response to spatial activities which are

framed by cultural institutions, or by a combination of both symbolic and spatial structuring

(Rapoport 1986). I have applied the expression Cultural Imperatives to those activities and

symbols that are framed by cultural institutions. For the past fifteen years I have been slowly,

through participatory observation and intercultural practice, observing and recording Cultural

Imperatives for the design of built environments with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

people. Each project, people and location is different and its own imperatives are derived

from the development of a design brief. However, the connection with the Australian

landscape, or Country, and Aboriginal religion and identity is consistent on every project I

have worked on.

It is important to recognize that built form (and dominant cultural frameworks) also influence

culture; it is a two-way reflective relationship. For example a person’s experience of different

physical environments and cultures can subconsciously and consciously affect how they

interpret their own environment. If an environment inhibits a preferred cultural practice it

might be seen as a vehicle for culture change or adaptation.

People’s creation of and control over their own living environment has consequences for

their well-being and identity (van Staden 1984, Reser 1991 and Prussin 1995). If individuals

feel that they have control over their environment and how it is structured (physically, socially





3

and cognitively), and if the environment supports individuals’ belief systems then it

contributes to the maintenance of individual health and well-being.

1.2 Why should we consider cultural imperatives in the design of custodial and health

environments?

Stress has been described as a ‘response stimulus’ which results from pressures and forces

on people and things (Oxford Dictionary 1973, Memmott 1988:34, 1991, Reser 1991). Reser

(1991: 249) states that people experience stress through:

The pressures and demands of transition;

The experience and impact of discrimination and prejudice;

Marginal social and economic status;

The condition of the physical environment in which people live, and;

Poor health.

People also experience stress through conflict and lack of ‘personal control’ over situations

and environments. Being ‘stressed’ can create anxiety, irritability, and may lead to conflict

and health related problems. Ongoing stress can contribute to mental illnesses such as

depression, neurosis, substance abuse, and, potentially, suicide. (Reser 1991, see chapter 7

on sorcery). Labelle Prussin (1995:205) supports Reser when she says,

It is a well-established fact that control over one’s environment,

whether perceived or real, is an essential component of environmental

satisfaction. Control over one’s self-created architecturally defined

space, particularly when it is so imbued with meaning and emotion, is

essential for self-identity and mental health.

Studies in cross-cultural psychology by D’Andrade (in Kitayama & Markus 1994:98) support

the notion that preventing individuals from achieving culturally prescribed goals and following

cultural directives can produce anxiety. If the medium inhibiting the achievement of these

goals is a physical environment, then the environment will create stress for the occupants

and users, and in turn they may deflect their anxiety onto their physical environment.

Physical environments, such as buildings, are not entirely responsible for creating anxiety

and stress in individuals, but can contribute to other feelings of a loss of control.

In the creation of environments that recognise and support positive existing social and

cultural practices and create some comfort we are trying to reduce stress and enable mental

and physical rehabilitation.

1.3 How can we respond to social and cultural imperatives of Aboriginal people in the

design of built environments?

In some societies, such as Australian Aboriginal society, the translation of beliefs into spatial

and built forms may not be easily recognizable from a non-Indigenous perspective. They are

often subtle and available to keen observers and participants in Aboriginal culture and

society. Traditional Aboriginal Australian lifestyles did not require ‘monumental’





4

representations of culture in a built form. Aboriginal cultural representations are inherent in

the Australian landscape and in Aboriginal religion and world view.

The two case studies I will describe have a range of similarities and differences. The first is a

large custodial environment, while the second is a small supported accommodation facility.

However, I can imagine the master plan of the smaller centre as a microcosm of a bigger

custodial or health facility. Even perhaps as part of the mental health unit within a prison

environment.

There are a number of design principles that are consistent across the case studies

presented. These design principles attempt to illustrate the cultural imperatives that may

assist in reducing stress and aiding rehabilitation for Aboriginal prisoners and patients.

Maintaining connections to country and landscape:

o Understanding Aboriginal history of the place, and

o Through disassembling design elements and

o Managing views to the horizon and of surrounding significant cultural

landscapes

Design of landscape and flora to support comfort through memory:

o Acknowledging Aboriginal history of the site in the place making and

landscape design

o Maintaining significant trees, places, flora on the site.

o Create a landscape selection that provides opportunity for prisoners/patients

to engage (visually or physically) with the landscape and flora to aid

rehabilitation

Avoid institutional architecture:

o Creating domestic scale and non-institutional language to the architecture

o Choosing materials, textures and colours that reflect the surrounding

landscape and are meaningful to the users of the facility

o Create opportunities for informal social interaction

Acknowledging socio-cultural groups (gender/kin/clan/skin/family groups):

o Understand social-spatial behaviours and needs of Aboriginal

prisoners/patients

o Through careful consideration during the Master planning phase, design in

flexibility that allows for program management of the facility to group and

locate people with consideration for the social/cultural links and background.

o Create central program areas that are inviting and welcoming to encourage

social, educational and rehabilitation activities.

Incorporating Indigenous identity:

o By working with relevant Indigenous groups to identify how identity can be

encapsulated into the design.

o By working with relevant Indigenous groups to present Indigenous identity in

building form, planning and orientation, material and finishing choices





5

2.0 Case Studies

2.1 West Kimberley Regional Prison by TAG and Iredale Pederson Hook Architects

Figure 1: Boab trees maintained in landscape design on the site

The West Kimberly Regional Prison in Western Australia has recently been awarded the

National Award for Public Architecture and the David Oppenheim Award for Sustainable

Architecture by the Australian Institute of Architects. The jury states that it “This project has

re-imagined the role of a prison as a place of refuge and rehabilitation. Although it was

designed for the specific requirements of Indigenous Australians, it suggests better ways of

dealing with incarceration for all culture…The design of the buildings provide security without

claustrophobia (AA Nov/Dec 2013: P51).

The new prison is located on a 25ha site outside of Derby in north WA, and can hold up to

150 prisoners. It was conceived to keep Kimberley Aboriginal people close to their country

and to respond to their cultural and environmental needs (Grant 2013: 76). The project’s

success has been anchored to two factors, the implementation of a community consultation

and feedback model and the collaboration of two design firms with diverse experience in

prisons and working with Aboriginal people, which has produced a world-class facility.

Elizabeth Grant (2013:78) has undertaken a review of the design of the facility and she

states “The design is founded on the knowledge that prison accommodation needs to be

flexible, culturally appropriate, promote human interaction and enable Indigenous prisoners

to remain connected to their kin, land and community.”





6

How is this achieved in the design of the facility?

Cluster design of smaller buildings, no single large building modules, arranged

around central football oval.

Non-rigid or institutional pathway and landscape design. Varied orientation of

buildings creates visual interest and more residential scale to the facility.

Open nature of the design in the master plan allows for view corridors to landscape,

country and the horizon.

Maintenance of existing landscape and significant flora including iconic boab trees

Incorporation into the Master Plan of meeting areas, a spiritual centre, separate

women’s and men’s health facilities

Women’s area is clearly physically separated from other areas and given its own

facilities and character – gender separation is an important cultural consideration for

many Aboriginal people

Clustered self-care accommodation units in groups of between four and six units,

each housing 6 to 8 prisoners each. This allows prisoners to be clustered in cultural

groups, if program and management supports this model

Minimum security accommodation units include secure sleep outs that allow people

to sleep under the stars on secure verandah spaces.

Selection of materials and finishes and colours reflect the natural environment,

bringing comfort to the prisoners

Figure 2: Considered, non-institutional architecture, meandering pathways and native

landscape.





7

2.2 Wabu Gadun Bulmba Gurriny Mukanji Centre (Gurriny) by ICTC, People Oriented

Design and Indij Design

Figure 3: Part Site Plan: Gurriny centre. Cluster of accommodation units and landscape

design

The Gurriny Centre aims to create a rehabilitative environment for people with acquired brain

injury through individual program services in a residential setting where the landscape and

building designs are integral to each other. The centre is proposed on Yidinji land south of

Cairns, Queensland.

I concur with Martin and Casault (2004:16) when they state ‘Of utmost importance are the

skills of listening, observing, and drawing, and of questioning what seems taken for granted

by oneself and the “client”, for it is with these that one can make visible and materialize the

essential’. What does to ‘materialize the essential’ mean? In architectural design it means to

draw out and refine the essence of something; to find the key purpose and spirit of

something. This was precisely what we attempted to do in the Gurriny project with a range of

stakeholders; with the client on the model of health care, with the Yidinji traditional owners in





8

the design workshops, and with the Design Managers on their vision for Indigenous

management of the project. Our role as the design team was then to balance and unify these

essential components and make a Yidinji place for people with acquired brain injury to rest

and heal.

The design methodology was not explicitly discussed when the project started. What was

discussed over a series of meetings was how the project was to be managed, by whom, with

which other stakeholders and how, and what communication protocols should be followed.

This manifested in a number of activities and practices, which initially challenged some of

the parties on the project, but eventually became incorporated into the project process. Such

as,

Acknowledgement of traditional owners at every meeting

Clear communication protocols that gave the Indigenous design manager control and

veto over design decisions

Allowance in project timeframes for meetings with traditional owner and ecology

groups and for cultural family business such as ‘sorry business’.

Being respectful during meetings and allowing everyone space and time to talk

without being interrupted or spoken over

The process that resulted was more flexible and discursive than others I have worked on,

but it was still a non-Indigenous framework in which the Indigenous design team danced,

weaved and negotiated to be able to apply a more iterative process in parallel. The

Indigenous Design Manager describes the design process that we developed as being non-

Indigenous architectural traditions injected or affected by Indigenous beliefs and practices.

Martin and Casault (2005:5) refer to this in their work in Canada with the Innu, ‘The Innu are

continually fashioning a way of being in the world that builds on the past while

simultaneously resisting and embracing white Western values’. This reflects our own

process in which we often had meetings to discuss how to work within and around the

structure of the project and still achieve a design and process that responded to Indigenous

priorities and ways of living. The responded to Indigenous cultural imperatives.

2.2.1 Approach to Model of Care, Planning and Building Code Constraints:

How is all this made evident in the design? Gurriny has been designed with careful

consideration for the philosophy and model of care planned by the client. The facility is to

provide transitional care for people with acquired brain injury in an environment that is

supportive but that also encourages independence and rehabilitation specific to the needs of

each person. The centre is not specifically for people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

descent, however it is expected that the majority of clients will be Indigenous because of the

cohort of people in north Queensland with acquired brain injury.

The buildings are carefully arranged on the site within a native rehabilitative garden (or

‘Abriculture’1 landscape). The gardens include vegetable gardens, bush foods, native plants

1 ‘Abriculture’ is the name of a company and way of working developed by Seith Fourmile and Jenny Lynch to

develop local Indigenous food forests and gardens.





9

for manufacturing, a freshwater therapy pool and a native seasonal plant-clock. The

freshwater, hydrotherapy pool is adjacent to the central facility and is fully accessible by

wheelchairs. The maintenance and use of the gardens are intended to be part of the

rehabilitation of the people receiving care: rather than physiotherapy with tools in a non-

indigenous sense, the intention is to create a landscape that can be used as the tools for

physiotherapy. For example, instead of putting peas in a jar to improve fine motor function,

the clients should be able to sort lily pillys or, pick herbs from the garden or, strip Yakal

(pandanus) leaves to weave a basket (and be reminded of home and country at the same

time).

The central facility has been designed at a domestic scale to be non-institutional and

welcoming. A number of spaces within the central facility are multi-purpose and open to

large verandahs, which maximises connections with the gardens and promotes natural

ventilation. All the Bulmba are within 30m of the central facility and the high dependency

Bulmba are within 10m. This enables easy and immediate access between the buildings and

maintains visual surveillance of each Bulmba from the staff unit. Each living unit is

connected to the central facility with an emergency call system and sealed pathways.

All of the buildings on the site have been designed and arranged to passive climatic design

principles for the tropics. They capture the local breezes, shield from the storms and have

extensive shading and overhangs to protect from the sun. The central facility will capture

rainwater to irrigate the vegetable gardens. The sewerage system for the facility is contained

on site providing irrigation to some of the lawn areas. The design of Gurriny Centre has been

classified as a 9a Health Care Building under the Building Code of Australia. It exceeds the

Australian Standard 1428 - Design for Access and Mobility, and 90% of the complex meets

the platinum level of the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines. The building has also been

designed to achieve a six star commercial energy assessment rating under the Building

Code of Australia.

2.2.2 Approach to Design for Indigenous Clients and Respect for Yidinji Land:

The proposed design is anchored in the land and country in which it is based. The proposed

site was on Yidinji land, and it aims to recognise the Yidinji and its Indigenous clients through

a number of landscape and design features. Early in the process, design workshops were

held with the Yidinji to discuss how Indigenous culture could be expressed in the design

without causing offence or confusion to non-Yidinji Indigenous clients and users of the

facility. There is a design engagement methodology that I (Fantin 2003b) developed in the

late 1990s that was used as a framework to start conversations around culture and design.

The method starts with a presentation on design and architecture in International Indigenous

environments and then moves to discussions on identity represented in stories, art and

history, the site and the country around the site. It also includes discussions about social and

cultural norms and behaviours. The process aims to find consensus on what and how the

Yidinji wanted their cultural identity recognised in the design. This process occurred over a

series of meetings in which design ideas were developed and discussed with the Indigenous

Design Manager prior to discussing them with the traditional owner group.





10

A summary of Indigenous and Yidinji features of the design:

Incorporation of references to the rainforest cross-boomerang, the Wangul, as the

anchoring design element for the orientation of the buildings and landscape. The

cross-boomerang was the symbol chosen by the Yidinji elders as appropriate for the

project and place. It was seen as specific to the rainforest of north Queensland, but

not a totemic ancestor featured in local histories that would cause any angst or

confusion with another group.

The orientation and layout of the facility responds to the cultural and scenic views of

the site. The axis of the facility is the axis of the Wangul and aligns with views to

Bunda Djarragan (the Pyramid) to the south, Bunda Mundii Ghunji White Rock to the

north and Bunda Meringi (Mt Peter) to the west; all significant Yidinji places.

The Bulmba form was inspired by traditional Aboriginal rainforest architecture of the

region. Each Bulmba has an outdoor barbeque area and healing herb garden. The

Bulmba have curved internal corners to minimise places for bad spirits to harbour.

The Bulmba are designed to be constructed of timber to feel natural and warm.

The facility and the buildings have been given names in Yidin, anchoring them to the

place and the people whose land the facility sits on.

The roof of the central facility has a number of planes, and the main plane has a

slight twist. This is a subtle reference to leaves and traditional Yidinji water carriers

from the region.

The spatial organisation of the buildings and rooms within buildings provides privacy

but also enables people to pay respect to various family members including ‘poison

cousins’ (those in avoidance relationships. See Fantin 2003). Most spaces have

multiple entries and exits so that people can move subtly away from one another if

needed.

The landscape design is extensive and intricate and includes native bush food and

medicinal plants, vegetable gardens, fruit trees, private gardens for each unit and a

native seasonal plant-clock. Each plant has been identified using its Yidin and

scientific botanical names.

The seasonal plant-clock is at the south of the facility and includes a selection of

species that flower and/or fruit at different times of the year. The seasonal plant-clock

allows clients to connect with other environmental triggers in the surrounding

landscape.

4.0 Conclusion

To commence this paper I raised three questions:

Why should we consider cultural imperatives in the design of custodial

environments?

How can we respond to social and cultural imperatives of Aboriginal people in the

design of built environments, and





11

Is there any evidence to suggest that culturally responsive design contributes to

rehabilitation?

To the first question I would add, and whose Aboriginal cultural imperatives are these? Are

they developed by non-Indigenous designers based on a romantic world view of Aboriginal

Australia? Or are they anchored in Aboriginal social-cultural belief systems?

During the introduction I described the relationship between culture and built form. I quoted

Amos Rapoport “Culture is ultimately translated into form through what people do as a result

of what is in their heads and within the constraints of their situation” (Rapoport 1986:162).

One could argue that what I have presented today is a non-Indigenous interpretation of

cultural imperatives important to Aboriginal people. This is an important position to consider.

What is evident in the Gurriny case study are the cultural imperatives driven by an Aboriginal

Design Manager and the Indigenous CEO of the client organization. This is the closest I

have been as a practitioner to testing what I observe and record as a cultural imperative and

what my Aboriginal client tells me is one. The list of Design Principles I have presented

today have been tested rigorously through the Gurriny project. And in any new projects I

work on we will test them again, because perceptions of culture change, as do people from

different places.

The second question How can we respond to social and cultural imperatives of Aboriginal

people in the design of built environments? has been answered in a preliminary way by

providing the case studies and discussing how each project responded to the needs of the

Aboriginal users of each facility. A key consideration is the consultation and engagement

methodology established to undertake the design work. Both demonstrated collaboration

with Aboriginal people involved in and affected by the project. If a design is developed with

an “expert” or “specialist” input, but without collaboration and ownership by Aboriginal people

then we fail to test the cultural imperatives that we develop and apply to the project. We also

fail to acknowledge and respect the people affected by the project and engage in a two-way

learning process that empowers all parties.

The third question has the least comprehensive empirical data in Australian environments, Is

there any evidence to suggest that culturally responsive design contributes to rehabilitation?

The theory of environmental psychology suggests that responding to an individual or group’s

world view in the creation of physical environments will contribute that individual’s wellbeing.

However, we can’t rely on architecture and design alone to facilitate wellbeing. Recent

research by Roderick Lawrence (Bechtel 2012:394-410) on healthy environments describes

the need for a holistic approach to achieving well-being that considers the following factors:

Economic circumstances

Positive social/cultural environments

Environmental health: access to clean water and air, infrastructure

Access to health services

Access to quality food and nutrition

Education and information

Appropriate housing and accommodation





12

Local urban/rural environment

Contribution of local ecology and natural conditions

Change in needs over time

To understand how all these factors may affect the design of a prison or health facility,

projects need to have extensive study and collaboration of different disciplines in the

beginning of projects. I would argue that this collaboration should include representation of

relevant Aboriginal user groups to each project. Aboriginal prisoners and patients are our

most marginalised clients and those with the highest incarceration rates and health problems

of all Australians. The two case studies provided demonstrate what can be achieved when

designers, clients, funders and program managers work together with Indigenous needs in

mind.

5.0 References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Prisoners in Australia 2012.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Products/A91DA889C3E80BA4CA257B3C000DC

CC1?opendocument

Bechtel, R and Churchman, A. (2002) Handbook of Environmental Psychology. John Wiley

& Sons, New York.

Bessarab, D and Ng’andu, B. (2010) Yarning About Yarning as a Legitimate Method in

Indigenous Research in International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies,

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Vol 3. No. 1

Bryam, M and Guilherme, M. (2010). Intercultural Education and Intercultural

Communication: Tracing the Relationship. In Becoming Intercultural: Inside and

Outside the Classroom. Tsai, Y and Houghton, S (eds). Cambridge Scholars

Publishing. UK. Chapter 1. (4-18).

Fantin S., (2002) Recognising Aboriginal architecture from northeast Arnhem Land: The

‘ancestral aesthetic in Yolngu dwellings and ceremonial structures, in. Additions

SAHANZ Conference Proceedings, Brisbane, Oct 4-7.

Fantin, S. (2003a) Aboriginal Identities in Architecture in Architecture Australia Sept/Oct

Fantin, S. (2003b) Housing Aboriginal Culture in Northeast Arnhem Land. PhD Thesis,

Aboriginal Environments Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Grant, E. (2013) West Kimberley Regional Prison in Architecture Australia July/August 2013,

P76 – 82.

Hall, E T. (1966) The Hidden Dimension, Doubleday & Company Inc. New York.





13

Heffernan, E.B et al (2012) Prevalence of mental illness among Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander people in Queensland prisons in MJA 197 (1) July. P 37 - 41

Johnston, E. (1991). Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody National Report,

Volumes 1- 5. Canberra, Australian Government Printing Service.

Kitayama, S and Markus, HR. (1994A). Introduction to Cultural Psychology and Emotion

Research in Kitayama, S & Markus, HR.(eds) 1994. Emotion and Culture. Empirical

Studies of Mutual Influence. American Psychological Association, Washington.

Lawrence, RJ. (1989) Translating Anthropological Concepts into Architectural Practice. in

Setha, M & Chambers, E (eds) Housing, Culture & Design. A Comparative

Perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Martin, T and Casault, A. (2005) Thinking the Other: Towards Cultural Diversity in

Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) Vol. 59, No. 1 (Sept). pp 3-

16. Wiley on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc.

Memmott, P. (2007) Gunyah, Goondie & Wurley. The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, St

Lucia: University Qld Press,.

Memmott, P. (1990B) Sociospatial Structures Of Australian Aboriginal Settlements in

Pamir,H., Imamoglu, V., Teymur, N. (eds) Culture Space, Mefu Faculty of

Architecture and Serki Vanli Foundation of Architecture, Ankara. May Vol 14 Pp280-

290.

Prussin, L. (1995). African Nomadic Architecture. Space, Place and Gender. Smithsonian

Institution Press and The National Museum of African Art. London.

Rapoport, A. (1982) The Meaning of The Built Environment. A non-verbal communication

approach. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Rapoport, A.(1986). “Culture and Built Form – A Reconsideration” in Saile, David. G. (eds)

Architecture in Cultural Change. Essays in Built Form & Culture Research. University

of Kansas, Lawrence.

Reser, J. (1991) Aboriginal Mental Health: Conflicting Cultural Perspectives.” In Reid, J &

Trompf, P. (eds) The Health of Aboriginal Australia. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

Limited, Sydney.

Van Staden, F J. (1984) Developments in defining the experience of crowding In South

African Journal of Psychology. No 14, Pp20-22.

Dr Shaneen Fantin, James Cook University (paper): Reminding me of home. Culturally responsive design...

Technology

Transcript of Dr Shaneen Fantin, James Cook University (paper): Reminding me of home. Culturally responsive design...