Introduction

Many of the big plans for the big places arouse out of their designation as 'critical areas'. They were defined that way not only by governments but also by interest groups, many with a considerable history of involvement in the regions and areas in question. Some tend to see all big plans for big places as fundamentally anti-democratic in character and largely dismissive of indigenous knowledge and understanding. Much of the new thinking about planning governance often reflects a more robust, nuanced and sophisticated understanding of ecology and ecosystem resilience. This can be seen in the types of approaches to and strategies for regional planning reflected in the plans created for big rural places. Some were state or provincial level programs. Others reflected a more intrusive federal role than was traditionally the case. And still others attempt to strike a balance between local and extra-territorial and private and public interests.