I have a theory: the COVID-19 pandemic has something to teach us about cultural safety. If you can bear it, think back to those moments in the early days of the pandemic. Remember how unsettling it was to have to cover your face to stay safe every time you left your home? Remember how, when in public spaces or even just walking down the street, you had to assume that anyone could make you unwell, and as a result, you tended to give them a wide berth? No doubt there were times when the lack of airflow in a particular interior space made you realize that the environment had not been constructed with your safety in mind.

This is what cultural unsafety feels like. For First Nations peoples, anyone, at any time, can inadvertently harm us because our way of seeing the world does not match the dominant culture. For us, we can be injured as a result of a lack of education about ethics and appropriate behavioural protocols. Being in public spaces can be harmful to us if they are not designed to consider our way of life and worldview, or with our wellbeing or ways of being in mind. It is not unusual that we need to remove ourselves from situations because being there is just too painful. It is not uncommon that we need to stay away from particular environments or separate ourselves from certain people because they are unsafe. Like a pandemic, an experience of cultural unsafety can impact us and create unwellness for many years – and even across generations. This is the reality for many First Nations people in the continent now called Australia.

We all live, play and work in built environments. All spaces should reflect society – yet, currently, they primarily reflect the dominant western society, along with the values of that dominant society. Likewise, spatial expressions of the values of those designing, commissioning and approving are mostly an expression of the dominant culture. To bring changes to the ways in which First Nations peoples are included in spaces, we must ensure that the design of spaces incorporates culturally safe values.

The broadly agreed definition of a culturally safe environment is a place that is safe for all people, where there is no assault, challenge, or denial of their identity, of who they are or of what they need. Cultural safety is about shared respect, shared meaning, shared knowledge and shared experience of learning, living and working together with dignity and true listening.1

The creation of culturally safe spaces goes beyond discussions concerning censorship and freedom of speech or expression. It occurs within the larger debate of cultural sovereignty and First Nations’ identities. To achieve cultural safety, we must question methods of and motivations for engagement. Space itself has been, and continues to be, a lens through which to view this debate in a productive and relevant manner. For this reason, built environment professionals are poised to contribute to the debate in ways that will have far-reaching cultural and spatial implications.

Cultural safety is often perceived as something that can be achieved through personal relationships, policies and procedures rather than through the built environment. However, as the pandemic has taught us, spatial responses are critical to safety, including cultural safety. Yet the potential for the built environment to improve cultural safety is, currently, largely ignored.

For First Nations peoples, culturally safe spaces are environments where First Nations histories are visible, First Nations identities are supported and First Nations experiences are respected. Cultural safety requires that we do not speak for others or on behalf of others without their approval. Cultural safety creates a space for those who are often silenced to voice their concerns and a space for those who, historically, have been excluded. Cultural safety provides time for all who need to be heard. Cultural safety ensures that all expressions of culture are enabled, irrespective of personal opinions. Therefore, the design process itself must encourage cultural safety and ensure that spaces express and resonate with First Nations communities.

Resilience and survival go hand in hand with cultural safety; healing relies on restoring and maintaining trust. An understanding of cultural safety from a First Nations perspective can assist in the truthtelling and healing process, while also reducing future harms to First Nations peoples. Critical to cultural safety is an understanding of spaces and how they are used differently by First Nations peoples. For example, Norm Sheehan, a Wiradjuri scholar, describes the cultural etiquette of “yarning circles.”2 He cites the simple rule that whoever is speaking “holds authority for the time they speak,” and suggests that this single instruction situates respect as an “ontological learning principle” that encourages dialogue, collaboration and creative engagement. Through the two ideas of respect and dialogue, Sheehan’s position on cultural safety can be associated with ideas of collaboration and the cross-disciplinary development of new knowledge.

To create culturally safe spaces, built environment professionals must consider the enculturated values they may hold toward design and place, noting that their design values have been derived from and learned through a dominant cultural or Euro-Western perspective. Often, culturally unsafe places are created not through malice, but through a lack of empathetic consideration and a lack of understanding of ethics and protocols. When aiming to design for cultural safety, designers must actively work to reconsider assumptions they may have in their response to design, remembering that they themselves may be culturally underdeveloped,3 while seeing the design through the eyes of all possible users and ensuring that sufficient engagement has occurred to reflect a diversity of voices, needs and ways of using spaces.

Other than ensuring cultural competency, non-Indigenous designers need to ask about, understand and adhere to the ethics and protocols of the communities with which they are engaging, the cultures within which they are working, and the Country on which they are operating. Cultural safety must be considered from the conception of a project, including in the design processes and practices, the engagement activities and communications, and the proposed outcomes of the design. Cultural safety must occur while working with the community. To ensure the safety and wellbeing of Country, cultural safety must be considered in behaviour while on Country, including in thoughts and actions.

Spaces that embody cultural safety demonstrate respectful conduct toward Country, including doing no harm to Country, humans and non-humans. Spaces of cultural safety avoid destruction, both of First Nations artefacts, art and special places, and of habitats and sense of place. Destruction such as this is violence, and culturally safe spaces must be free of violence of all types, including physical and psychological. Additionally, environments that enable lateral violence must be considered in the creation of culturally safe spaces. Lateral violence is violence that is displaced. It occurs when members of a marginalized or oppressed community attack their own community rather than their oppressors; it can result in bullying, ostracism, de-identification and isolation, and it is culturally unsafe.

Culturally safe spaces have inclusive narratives, with First Nations stories foregrounded and the opportunity for truthtelling about the past. Spaces that are culturally safe are free of traumatic triggers, such as statues, streets or places named after protagonists of atrocities against First Nations peoples. Culturally safe spaces ensure that there are no erasures, including declarations of “firsts” (for example, “x was the first person to y” or “the first road or building or park was built in z”). Declarations such as this actively work to erase First Nations humanity, ongoing connections and histories, making First Nations peoples feel invisible, unheard and unsafe. Spaces that include cultural safety have not only a First Nations appearance or feeling, but are created for First Nations people to occupy, with the people who will be using them guiding the process of design or actively co-designing. Spaces of cultural safety actively push back against hierarchical systems of power that are often represented in symbolism and spatial arrangements. The creation of culturally safe spaces requires sufficient time, including ample time for these critical conversations about protocols and ethics, cultural safety, spatial justice and lateral violence to occur.4

While there is a broader conversation to be had about the causes of the pandemic, the lessons from it should include learnings about cultural safety in spaces and how, as built environment professionals, we can design better for cultural safety.

1. Nursing Council of New Zealand, Guidelines for Cultural Safety , the Treaty of Waitangi and Maori Health in Nursing Education and Practice (Wellington: Nursing Council of New Zealand, 2011).

2. Norman W. Sheehan, “Indigenous knowledge and respectful design: An evidence-based approach,” Design Issues , vol. 27, no. 4, Autumn 2011, 68–80, doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00106, Wiradjuri.

3. See Dani è le Hromek, “Listen, observe, learn: Ethics and protocols on Country,” ArchitectureAU , architectureau.com/articles/listen-observe-learn-ethics-and-protocols-on-country.

4. With thanks to members of the Australian Institute of Architect’s First Nations Advisory and Working Group, as well as other First Nations colleagues who have generously shared their experiences and thoughts . While their names and direct words are not included to maintain their cultural safety, their thoughts and concerns have been incorporated into these directions for creating cultural safety in spaces.