Home Creating healthy and just bioregions
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Creating healthy and just bioregions

  • Keith Pezzoli and Robert Allen Leiter EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: January 20, 2016

Abstract

Dramatic changes taking place locally, regionally, globally, demand that we rethink strategies to improve public health, especially in disadvantaged communities where the cumulative impacts of toxicant exposure and other environmental and social stressors are most damaging. The emergent field of Sustainability Science, including a new bioregionalism for the 21st Century, is giving rise to promising place-based (territorially rooted) approaches. Embedded in this bioregional approach is an integrated planning framework (IPF) that enables people to map and develop plans and strategies that cut across various scales (e.g. from regional to citywide to neighborhood scale) and various topical areas (e.g. urban land use planning, water resource planning, food systems planning and “green infrastructure” planning) with the specific intent of reducing the impacts of toxicants to public health and the natural environment. This paper describes a case of bioregionally inspired integrated planning in San Diego, California (USA). The paper highlights food-water-energy linkages and the importance of “rooted” community-university partnerships and knowledge-action collaboratives in creating healthy and just bioregions.


Corresponding author: Robert Allen Leiter, FAICP, Adjunct Professor of Practice, Urban Studies and Planning Program, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0521, La Jolla, CA 92093-0521, USA, Phone: +619-261-6321, E-mail:

References

1. Clark, W. Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007;104(6):1737–8.10.1073/pnas.0611291104Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

2. Pezzoli, K. The bioregionalization of survival, Center for Sustainability Science, Planning and Design. University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, Urban Studies and Planning Program 10503, LaJolla CA. Working paper #001.Search in Google Scholar

3. Pezzoli, K. Bioregionalism. In: Adamson J, Gleason W, Pellow DN, editors. Keywords in the study of environment and culture. New York, NY: New York University Press, 2015:1.Search in Google Scholar

4. Peter B, Dasmann R. Reinhabiting California. Ecologist 1977;7(10):399–401.Search in Google Scholar

5. Thayer RL. Life place: bioregionalism thought and practice. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2003:6.Search in Google Scholar

6. Pezzoli K, Kozo J, Ferran K, Wooten W, Gomez GR, et al. One bioregion/one health: an integrative narrative for transboundary planning along the US-Mexico border. Global Soc 2014;28:419–40.10.1080/13600826.2014.951316Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

7. Beatley, T. Green regions, green regionalism. In: Seltzer E, Carbonell A, editors. Regional planning in America: practice and prospect. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2011:140–75.Search in Google Scholar

8. Wheeler, SM. Planning for sustainability: creating livable, equitable and ecological communities. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2013:401.10.4324/9780203134559Search in Google Scholar

9. Godschalk DR. Land use challenges: coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. J Am Plan Assoc 2004;70(1):5–13.10.1080/01944360408976334Search in Google Scholar

10. Godschalk DR, Anderson WR. Sustaining places: the role of the comprehensive plan. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, 2012:97.Search in Google Scholar


Article note:

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P42ES010337, and by the Center for Sustainability Science, Planning and Design at the University of California, San Diego. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or University of California.


Received: 2015-10-15
Accepted: 2015-11-20
Published Online: 2016-01-20
Published in Print: 2016-03-01

©2016 by De Gruyter

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Traditional and emerging environmental hazards in South-East Asia: double-trouble in the 21st century
  4. A quarter century of the Pacific Basin Consortium: looking back to move forward
  5. Exposure to Metals
  6. Arsenic projects in SE Asia
  7. Lead exposure from battery recycling in Indonesia
  8. Connecting mercury science to policy: from sources to seafood
  9. Mercury exposure in the work place and human health: dental amalgam use in dentistry at dental teaching institutions and private dental clinics in selected cities of Pakistan
  10. Protecting health from metal exposures in drinking water
  11. Exposure assessment of lead from food and airborne dusts and biomonitoring in pregnant mothers, their fetus and siblings in Karachi, Pakistan and Shimotsuke, Japan
  12. Mining
  13. Reconciling PM10 analyses by different sampling methods for Iron King Mine tailings dust
  14. The “CHILD” framework for the study of artisanal mercury mining communities
  15. Hydraulic fracturing for natural gas: impact on health and environment
  16. Hazardous Waste
  17. Searching bioremediation patents through Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
  18. Proteomics of Sphingobium indicum B90A for a deeper understanding of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) bioremediation
  19. Novel industrial wastewater treatment integrated with recovery of water and salt under a zero liquid discharge concept
  20. Water
  21. Connecting science with industry: lessons learned transferring a novel plasmonic mercury sensor from the bench to the field
  22. Pilot-scale UV/H2O2 study for emerging organic contaminants decomposition
  23. Nanotechnology: a clean and sustainable technology for the degradation of pharmaceuticals present in water and wastewater
  24. Solar-driven membrane distillation demonstration in Leupp, Arizona
  25. What works in water supply and sanitation projects in developing countries with EWB-USA
  26. Natural Disasters and a Changing Environment
  27. Environmental exposures due to natural disasters
  28. Changing exposures in a changing world: models for reducing the burden of disease
  29. Sustainable development through a gendered lens: climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction
  30. Environmental Justice and Human Rights
  31. Creating healthy and just bioregions
  32. Worm-free children: an integrated approach to reduction of soil-transmitted helminth infections in Central Java
  33. Diabetes in Native Americans: elevated risk as a result of exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
  34. Pollution, health and development: the need for a new paradigm
  35. EcoSystem
  36. Pacific connections for health, ecosystems and society: new approaches to the land-water-health nexus
  37. Exposure to e-waste
  38. E-waste: the growing global problem and next steps
  39. Global challenges for e-waste management: the societal implications
  40. E-waste issues in Sri Lanka and the Basel Convention
  41. E-waste interventions in Ghana
  42. CALUX bioassay: a cost-effective rapid screening technique for screening dioxins like compounds
  43. Cancer
  44. Cancer surveillance and research on environmental contributions to cancer
  45. Domestic incense use and lung cancer in Asia: a review
  46. Children
  47. Inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene in the South Pacific: how might it be impacting children?
  48. Children’s environmental health indicators in Australia: are we collecting the right information?
  49. Community-based efforts in health promotion in indigenous villages on the Thailand-Myanmar border
  50. Emerging issues
  51. Bayesian networks in infectious disease eco-epidemiology
  52. Health co-benefits in mortality avoidance from implementation of the mass rapid transit (MRT) system in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  53. Particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) personal exposure evaluation on mechanics and administrative officers at the motor vehicle testing center at Pulo Gadung, DKI Jakarta
  54. Life cycle assessment of dairy farms
Downloaded on 6.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2015-0050/pdf
Scroll to top button