Displacement in this context was less about urban planning and more directly connected to resource extraction, agricultural expansion, forestry, and the control of fire regimes. Colonial authorities systematically reconfigured landscapes through logging, fencing, and agricultural settlement, severing Gunaikurnai communities from the lands that sustained social, cultural, and ecological continuity (Broome, 2005; Pascoe, 2014). These interventions created a form of rural evacuation, where movement was restricted, subsistence disrupted, and traditional land management practices criminalised or ignored.

​

Gunaikurnai Country, encompassing rivers, wetlands, and forested highlands, was historically managed through intricate ecological knowledge and cultural fire practices that maintained biodiversity and seasonal resources. European settlement disrupted these practices by clearing land for pasture, regulating fire for protection of crops, and selectively logging forests for timber. Resource extraction — particularly in the gold rush and timber industries — displaced communities physically and culturally, concentrating populations in reserves or fringe settlements while simultaneously removing access to essential ecological resources (Attwood, 2003). The architecture of extraction was not neutral: roads, railways, sawmills, and fences served to define who could occupy the land and who was excluded.

​

Forestry and fire management policies imposed in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries further structured rural evacuation. Traditional fire regimes, essential for cultural continuity and ecological maintenance, were replaced with colonial suppression, reducing hunting and gathering opportunities and restricting mobility across traditional territories (Pascoe, 2014). These practices fragmented Gunaikurnai social networks, undermined intergenerational knowledge transmission, and consolidated settler control over land and resources.

The legacies of rural displacement continue to shape contemporary land use and architecture in Gunaikurnai Country. Land clearing, intensive agriculture, and infrastructure development persist in shaping access and use, often reproducing patterns of exclusion established in the colonial period (Dovey and Pafka, 2020). Architecture and planning remain implicated through the siting of buildings, roads, and industrial structures, as well as through policies that privilege economic utility over cultural continuity. Recognising these legacies is essential for ethical design, particularly when engaging with rural and semi-rural landscapes where the impacts of historical evacuation remain materially and socially embedded.

​

Practising architecture in Gunaikurnai Country requires acknowledgment of the ecological, cultural, and historical dimensions of displacement. Ethical practice entails collaboration with Traditional Owners as spatial authorities, designing to facilitate continuity of community and ecological knowledge, and resisting forms of development that replicate the logic of extraction and exclusion. By embedding relational accountability into the design process, architecture can contribute to repair rather than perpetuate displacement, supporting both cultural and environmental resilience.

​

The study of Gunaikurnai Country demonstrates that evacuation operates across multiple scales and terrains, from urban interiors to coastal margins to rural and forested landscapes. Extraction, fire management, and resource control have historically determined who may occupy land and who is removed, and these forces continue to influence contemporary settlement patterns. Architecture and planning are deeply implicated in these processes, and the profession bears a responsibility to understand and intervene ethically, recognising Indigenous authority over land, water, and ecological systems. By situating design within these histories, architects can work toward relational and ecological justice, ensuring that interventions support continuity of place rather than repeating patterns of removal.

​

__

​

​

References (Harvard style)

Attwood, B. (2003) Rights for Aborigines. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Broome, R. (2005) Aboriginal Victorians: A History Since 1800. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Dovey, K. and Pafka, E. (2020) ‘The urban politics of displacement’, Urban Studies, 57(1), pp. 1–18. Jacobs, J.M. (1996) Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism and the City. London: Routledge.

Pascoe, B. (2014) Dark Emu. Broome: Magabala Books. Victorian Government (2024) Closing the Gap Annual Report.