Urban Health and Society: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Research and Practice - Part 6 pot

Asthma & Environmental Justice Campaign for Solid Waste Plan 31 and other respiratory diseases. Despite legislation (Local Law 40) requiring the Department of Sanitation to issue siting regulations for these facilities, they had failed to do so. In 1993, regulations were proposed but never passed; in 1997, the city was ordered by a court to issue regulations; in 1998, they issued weak regulations that would have no effect on the concentration of sites; these were unsuccessfully contested in court by OWN, but Sanitation was forced by political pressure from community organizers to tighten up on enforcement. 36 Although this was clearly a land - use issue, the Department of City Planning never addressed the location and concentration of waste facilities in the city. They could have proposed using the city ’ s “ fair share ” rules, which were to ensure that no neighbor- hood had more than its fair share of certain facilities. Although these rules, established in the City ’ s Charter, apply only to certain publicly owned facilities, the planners never evoked the principle or instituted efforts to apply them to all facilities serving a public function. Instead, they deferred to the Sanitation Department and missed an important opportunity to work across departments. The Department of Health instead recognized the critical importance of asthma and began an initiative that included research, education, and prevention; it targeted intervention in neighborhoods with high concen- trations of childhood asthma cases. Three neighborhood - based health initiatives in affected areas went beyond traditional regulatory measures and promoted more com- prehensive approaches that, in collaboration with community - based advocacy groups, identifi ed elements in the built environment that tended to trigger asthma crises. However, the Department of Sanitation did not engage the health professionals, and they were not obligated to do so by the City. The City Planning Department was also not involved and did not make any changes to zoning regulations that would have restricted waste facilities, and they did not support community - based planning efforts that addressed unhealthy conditions in a comprehensive way. 3 The OWN/Consumers Union solid waste management plan 37 is based on three principles that the Department of Sanitation had resisted adopting: 1. Retrofi t the existing marine waste transfer stations, which are underutilized but relatively evenly spread throughout the city, to handle both domestic and commercial waste streams and substitute barges for polluting tractor - trailers 2. Fully support recycling 3. Enact measures to prevent and reduce waste The marine - based transfer stations would export most garbage by barge; the city would take responsibility for the large portion of commercial waste (over half the total); and the impact would be distributed more equitably throughout the city. OWN ’ s strategy was based on the understanding (which came out of their political organiz- ing), that to resolve each individual neighborhood ’ s problems there had to be a just plan for the citywide waste stream. This was a direct refutation of the charge often lev- eled against them by traditional city planners that community - based organizing and planning were necessarily based on the exclusionary Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) c02.indd 31c02.indd 31 6/3/09 11:57:39 AM6/3/09 11:57:39 AM 32 Environmental Justice Praxis sentiments that would prevent any rational siting of public facilities (this argument failed to acknowledge that the city never had a comprehensive plan for siting such facilities). The charges of NIMBYism against OWN activists were also contradicted by the OWN plan itself, which required some neighborhoods with environmental jus- tice claims to accept expanded and modernized marine transfer stations. OWN activists demonstrated and lobbied elected offi cials and met with the mayor and his aides. In 2002, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that the city was plan- ning to retrofi t its existing marine waste transfer stations. The city essentially adopted the principles of OWN ’ s solid waste plan. This decision was a historic moment for the environmental justice movement and the activist - led, community - based planning movement. The OWN plan made sense to the mayor ’ s offi ce because it would cut costs and remove a potential obstacle to gentrifi cation in waterfront neighborhoods they were targeting for new housing development. It strengthened the hand of commu- nity groups angling for a greater say in land - use planning so that a better environment would not be accompanied by gentrifi cation and displacement. City Hall followed the principles of growth and effi ciency while OWN emphasized equity, but the two came together in a tactical compromise. According to environmental justice activist Eddie Bautista, the plan was resisted by the city ’ s Department of Sanitation, whose job seemed to be defi ned as only “ taking out the trash. ” 36 Advocacy Planning and Environmental Justice Eddie Bautista was OWN ’ s lead organizer for most of its history and worked for the nonprofi t New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. He became one of the city ’ s lead- ing experts on solid waste management and a central fi gure in the development and advancement of OWN ’ s plan and then the city ’ s SWMP. Bautista got involved as an advocate for the neighborhoods that were saturated with waste transfer stations and became a leader in the city ’ s environmental justice movement. He had grown up in Red Hook, one of the Brooklyn neighborhoods affected by waste transfer stations. After the city adopted the principles of the OWN - backed solid waste plan, Bautista became an aide to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and went on to assist in development of the city ’ s fi rst long - term sustainability plan, PlaNYC2030. 38 What led Bautista and OWN toward a comprehensive, citywide approach? First, according to Bautista, was the realization that the city ’ s experts were always setting the agenda, and to get involved in the discussion, OWN had to have an alternative. OWN hired the Institute for Local Self Reliance, a Washington, D.C. – based non- profi t, to help fi nd that alternative. However, according to Bautista, “ one of the prob- lems was that their experience was mostly in recycling, and that wasn ’ t our priority. After a lot of discussion, we realized that what was missing in the traditional approach taken by the environmental movement, which emphasized recycling and waste reduc- tion, was the infrastructure piece ” (personal interview by Angotti, June 19, 2006). At a bidder ’ s conference, an OWN member overheard a contractor propose that the c02.indd 32c02.indd 32 6/3/09 11:57:39 AM6/3/09 11:57:39 AM Asthma & Environmental Justice Campaign for Solid Waste Plan 33 city ’ s existing marine - based transfer stations be retrofi tted and in some cases expanded to handle the waste from the land - based transfer stations that were concentrated in residential and mixed use neighborhoods. This struck OWN ’ s leadership as a pos- sible citywide solution. OWN ’ s plan fi lled a vacuum left by the city ’ s own technical experts in its various departments. But there was another impetus leading the activists to think more globally: solidarity. Bautista recounts how activists from different neighborhoods met at City Council hearings and other public events, developed ties, and supported each other: “ There is a powerful emotional need for solidarity . . . . We were all in the same boat. ” (personal interview by Angotti, June 19, 2006). According to Bautista, it was a politi- cal necessity. The mayor and City Council govern on a citywide basis and are there- fore more receptive to arguments about citywide policy. OWN activists also anticipated that the city would end up reshaping its solid waste policy, but based on their experi- ences at the grass roots, they had little confi dence that their neighborhoods would be treated fairly. Bautista stated, “ We knew that if the city was going to do a citywide strategy, some neighborhoods would get hit. ” In other words, principles of equity across the board would be sacrifi ced to keep waste out of the wealthier neighborhoods, a truly NIMBY outcome. (Even after the City Council passed the new SWMP, politi- cal leaders in Manhattan ’ s Upper East Side, arguably the wealthiest neighborhood in the world, continued to oppose the plan.) During the OWN campaign, Bautista entered the program in urban planning at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn and received a master ’ s degree. Bautista said that he gravi- tated to planning because “ so much of our urban life is connected. ” He says he learned from the battles fought by Jane Jacobs, and from advocacy planning, but also learned how Robert Moses, the city ’ s master builder, “ was able to get as much as he could. ” Through- out the campaign, he worked closely with urban planners, engineers, and public health professionals, including the coauthor of the OWN plan, Barbara Warren. Tom Angotti fi rst met Bautista when Angotti was a senior planner with the Department of City Planning in the early 1990s and worked on a community - generated plan for Red Hook, a low - income waterfront neighborhood that had suc- cessfully fought off two proposed sewage sludge treatment facilities and shut down several private waste transfer stations. After playing a critical role in the environmen- tal justice campaign in Red Hook, Bautista collaborated in the development of the community plan. After Angotti left City Planning, he became professor and chair at the Pratt Institute Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment. He then joined OWN, representing Planners Network, a group of advocacy planners founded in 1975, and advised OWN in a court - endorsed mediation with the Department of Sanitation that was geared toward creating siting regulations for waste facilities (no agreement was reached). He also became Eddie Bautista ’ s thesis advisor. Angotti ’ s role followed closely that of the advocacy planner and is one illustration of how urban planners can step out of their assigned roles to support efforts that are aimed at improving environmental health. It is also an example of how learning and c02.indd 33c02.indd 33 6/3/09 11:57:40 AM6/3/09 11:57:40 AM 34 Environmental Justice Praxis knowledge in academic, professional, and community arenas is a complicated pro- cess in which all teach and all learn from one another, as opposed to a top-down and hierarchial approach. 39 ASIAN IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE ORGANIZING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND HOUSING IN THE BAY AREA In Oakland, California, an environmental justice initiative illustrates how academic, social, and political forces interact to move practice toward new holistic and interdis- ciplinary approaches. This example is where a community - based organization, Asian Pacifi c Environmental Network (APEN), works to promote environmental justice, community development, and democracy in low - income Asian immigrant, refugee, and Asian American communities in the Bay Area. APEN was an important leader in the founding of the environmental justice movement, and their innovative programs and campaigns have been recognized nationally. Although the specifi c issues APEN focuses on are different from OWN, the holistic approach to urban public health and community development is similar. It emphasizes developing democracy (i.e., “ speaking for ourselves, ” a key tenet of the environmental justice movement) and developing local leadership through the language and framework of environmental justice, specifi cally around issues of housing, displacement, gentrifi cation, and ten- ants ’ rights. Two ongoing campaigns in Oakland and Richmond demonstrate the complexity of APEN ’ s approach to environmental justice in disenfranchised Asian immigrant and refugee communities. The fi rst, called the Laotian Organizing Project (LOP), is based in Richmond, an extremely poor, primarily industrial city populated by African Americans and Laotians. The Laotian community in Contra Costa County lives in one of the most toxic regions in the nation. Surrounded by more than 350 industrial sites and toxic hazards, the people ’ s home, school, and work environments are exposed to dangerous levels of lead, pesticides, and other chemicals on a daily basis. One of the LOP ’ s early organizing successes was the implementation of a multilingual warning system when accidental toxic releases occurred. Before LOP began organizing on this issue, the warning system was only in English, which most of the Laotian community did not speak. 40 The community ’ s problems have multidimensional roots, and this has led APEN to multidimensional organizing. Because most families in the Laotian community are renters who tend to have less political power than homeowners, organizing on tenant issues was important. LOP ’ s more than 300 active members have focused on the prob- lem of weak housing standards, including endemic problems with mold and lead paint and weak health - based housing regulations and lack of enforcement. LOP launched a campaign to adopt a “ just cause ” ordinance similar to those in other Bay Area cities. The campaign argues that “ everyone has a basic right to continue to live in their com- munities. ” LOP ’ s newest front is fi ghting displacement and winning protections for tenants against unfair evictions. LOP ’ s focus on housing justice strongly affi rms a c02.indd 34c02.indd 34 6/3/09 11:57:40 AM6/3/09 11:57:40 AM Asian Immigrant and Refugee Organizing 35 basic principle of environmental justice: “ fi ghting for basic rights to protect our com- munities where we live, work and play. ” 4 1 Vivian Chang, then-Executive Director of APEN, explained her view that the environment does not just mean pollution exposure (personal interview by Sze, August 5, 2006). For example, many Laotians grow their own food in their gardens (a practice they brought with them upon coming to the United States, journeys that were a result of U.S. interventions in Southeast Asia). Their view is that when tenants are evicted, these gardens and spaces that provide food as well as psychological connection to the land are also destroyed. Thus, environmental justice for Laotians also means commu- nity food security and access to environmental “ goods ” (e.g., gardens and open spaces). APEN also advocated for an enforcement board to deal with code violations and evic- tions in Richmond. APEN ’ s other organizing arm, Power in Asians Organizing (PAO), is focused on organizing Asian ethnic communities in the city of Oakland, including large numbers of Vietnamese, Chinese, Laotians, Cambodians, and Filipinos. Like LOP, PAO ’ s core group of community resident/activists focused on safe and affordable housing through their Housing Justice Campaign. PAO, with two other organizations, worked for three years to secure affordable housing at Oak to Ninth, a large housing project of 3,100 residential units located in the heart of PAO ’ s organizing area. The land, a sixty - four acre contaminated parcel on the waterfront, was originally proposed as 100 percent luxury condominiums (in a community where the average family is considered “ very low income, ” i.e., under $ 35,000/year). Through their campaign, PAO also helped to negotiate 300 entry - level construction career - path placements for Oakland residents, with real penalties for noncompliance. Lastly, $ 1.65 million will be dedicated to train- ing programs to support immigrants and those formerly incarcerated to get a start in the building trades. What is perhaps as signifi cant as the concrete goals achieved in both campaigns is that through their direct organizing APEN is taking steps to improve public participa- tion and engagement with urban development and community health in historically and culturally disenfranchised immigrant and refugee populations in complex urban environments. LOP ’ s organizing focuses simultaneously on health, environment, and housing rather than separating and narrowly defi ning these problems and solutions. LOP ’ s ability to connect these domains, while increasing community engagement, can lead to more dynamic and effective solutions for the multidimensional community and health problems faced by urban low - income communities of color. The vision is dynamic and refl ective of the environmental and public health conditions of real - world communities, individuals, and families. For example, as PAO suggested in their press release in response to the Oak to Ninth negotiations, “ As a result of this and other com- munity benefi ts campaigns, Oakland ’ s elected offi cials are seriously grappling with policies like Inclusionary Zoning that can make sure that developers pay their fair share in Oakland. ” (Inclusionary zoning generally requires that a portion of new hous- ing units be available to people with low and moderate incomes; some inclusionary zoning ordinances allow developers to develop more market - rate units if they include c02.indd 35c02.indd 35 6/3/09 11:57:40 AM6/3/09 11:57:40 AM 36 Environmental Justice Praxis affordable units.) Like the OWN campaign, APEN focuses on how to use the language of fair share and environmental justice to develop more equitable housing, land use, health, and community economic development policies. Does postgraduate education with an interdisciplinary focus matter, as it did to Eddie Bautista of OWN? It may in the case of Vivian Chang, who states that her per- sonal experience with collaboration across the activist/academic divide shaped her political and practical vision. Chang previously worked as an organizer with Asian Immigrant Workers Advocates on their garment worker justice campaign, after which she worked briefl y with the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) on their cumulative risk project. At Cal/EPA, she learned the importance of having an insider- outsider strategy to successfully implement positive policy change for envi- ronmental justice (as Angotti also learned). That is, to be effective, environmental justice activism and policy development needed to have both intermediaries and allies within public agencies and movement pressure from outside the agencies, specifi cally from community - based organizations. After those experiences, Chang attended the University of California at Los Angeles and received a masters in urban planning. For Chang, graduate education offered both a theoretical framework for interpreting regional economies and industries (e.g., the garment industry in Oakland) as well as pragmatic tools (GIS mapping and how to research particular industries and corpora- tions). According to Chang, “ graduate, academic, and professional training helped me develop smarter activist and organizing campaigns (such as living wage campaigns), ” because this training helped her understand the dominant discourses and frameworks for policy development. Chang believes that her personal work and academic experiences work synergisti- cally, leading to innovative approaches to improving community development and public health in low - income Asian immigrant and refugee populations in Bay Area cities, specifi cally through the language and framework of the environmental justice movement. One of the key questions she grapples with in APEN ’ s programmatic work is: “ What does a public health approach to urban development look like? ” In part, the answer depends on whether a particular development project or existing policy (whether land use, economic development, housing, environmental, or public health) promotes or negatively impacts community health and improves democracy, what environmental justice scholars call “ participatory justice. ” APEN strategically uses research as an organizing tool. To document environmen- tal justice problems, APEN and four other environmental justice groups released “ Building Healthy Communities from the Ground Up: Environmental Justice in California. ” 42 The 2003 report begins by outlining the “ environmental justice crisis ” in California (pollution, toxic waste, working conditions, environmental health risks, poor housing, and inequitable land uses). It then defi nes “ environmental justice approaches to creating healthy communities ” and the different strategies that environ- mental justice organizations have adopted to remediate the problems. There are, however, notable gaps between the organizing - related research APEN has undertaken (as in the Health Impact Assessment Projects) and academic research in c02.indd 36c02.indd 36 6/3/09 11:57:40 AM6/3/09 11:57:40 AM Conclusion 37 this development project. For instance, there was a health impact assessment (HIA) of the project performed by the University of California at Berkeley Health Impact Group (UCBHIG), 43 a nonpartisan, independent group of graduate students and faculty partic- ipating in a seminar on health impact assessment. The HIA differs from the traditional environmental impact assessment because it is voluntary but complements analysis required under law; evaluates environmental, social, and economic effects using the lens of human health; and estimates benefi ts as well as adverse consequences. On the issue of social equity (poverty, stereotypes, segregation, inequalities), the HIA reports no infor- mation. Although this report is quite extensive and is an example of graduate - level, applied training and education in public health related to a land - use and urban planning project, this lack of information on social equity is both disappointing and revealing of the limitations of much academic research, especially given the high profi le of the activ- ism by groups like APEN. CONCLUSION Opportunities for interdisciplinary urban research and education in academic institu- tions continue to be challenging and diffi cult. In the professions, specialization and not interdisciplinary collaboration continues to be of value to practitioners and employers. And government policy tends to focus on individual programs and agencies to solve specifi c issues and problems without necessarily looking at the whole picture. Holistic approaches are preached and promised by many, but they are often hard to come by in practice. Grand theories may promise effi cient and equitable solutions to chronic urban health problems, but in practice, equitable solutions that address differences of race and class are often compromised. Environmental justice praxis can help address these issues. Through environmen- tal justice praxis, practitioners use technical knowledge that moves among urban planning, public health, and other disciplines, and they incorporate professional exper- tise to achieve broad goals of social and environmental justice in communities long disenfranchised by race and class. In doing so, environmental justice praxis embodies and represents the best possibilities for holistic urban health research and practice. In crossing disciplinary and organizational barriers, environmental justice practitioners are making both public health and urban policy better, particularly in helping to advance such concepts as cumulative impact and the precautionary principle. Although more orthodox approaches to comprehensive societywide problems often result in rela- tively greater health risks for low - income communities of color, environmental justice praxis can help ensure that “ nobody ’ s backyard ” becomes a health risk. This path is not without challenges, especially because existing divisions and categories are entrenched in both academic training and policy contexts. But environ- mental justice activists tend to understand that the problems faced by low - income and urban communities of color are relentless and that existing modes of practice are not working. This reality paradoxically creates better conditions for more dynamic and interdisciplinary urban health and environmental research and policy. Our real - world c02.indd 37c02.indd 37 6/3/09 11:57:41 AM6/3/09 11:57:41 AM 38 Environmental Justice Praxis examples from New York and California, coming directly out of the environmental justice movement, show just how and why improved interdisciplinary approaches may help to remediate the worst examples of social injustice (and their health and environ- mental impacts) at community, city, and regional levels. Ultimately, interdisciplinary urban health is a framework that mirrors much of what is already happening “ on the ground ” as identifi ed by environmental justice practitioners. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. How did the Organization of Waterfront Neighborhoods (OWN) and the New York City government differ in how they viewed the problem of waste disposal in the city? How might these differences infl uence the questions researchers would ask? 2. How are the strategies used to achieve improved health and social outcomes and to promote environmental justice in New York City and the San Francisco Bay Area similar and how are they different? 3. What roles can social movements play in urban health research and practice? What are the limits of their role? How do they contribute to an interdisciplinary perspective? 4. What are the similarities and differences between the professions of public health and urban planning? SUMMARY In this chapter we have explored how inter- dis ciplinary environmental justice pra xis can help to reintegrate and reimagine the fi elds of public health and urban plann- ing. We draw on two case studies of envi- ronmental activism: the development of a comprehensive citywide solid waste management plan in New York City and the promotion of environmental justice, community development and participa- tory demo cracy among low-income Asian immigrant and Asian American communi- ties in the San Francisco Bay Area. In both cases, activists employed an environmental justice framework in seeking to understand community health and environmental prob- lems and to advocate for solutions through community organizing. They adopted a broad a defi nition of community health and reimagined urban development, the built environment, and public health in broad, holistic terms. Lessons learned include the importance of understanding the relation- ship between social justice movements and the production of know ledge and under- standing the occasionally fraught and con- tested relationships between communities and academic institutions. c02.indd 38c02.indd 38 6/3/09 11:57:41 AM6/3/09 11:57:41 AM Notes 39 NOTES 1. Delemos, J. L. Community - based participatory research: Changing scientifi c practice from research on communities to research with and for communities. Local Environment, 11, no. 3 (2006): 329 – 338. 2. Sze, J. Noxious New York: The Racial Politics of Urban Health and Environmental Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2007. 3. Angotti, T. New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008. 4. Davidoff, P. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, no. 4 (1965): 186 – 197. 5. Corburn, J. Confronting the challenges in reconnecting urban planning and pub- lic health. American Journal of Public Health, 94, no. 4 (2004): 541 – 546. 6. Corburn, J. Urban planning and health disparities: Implications for research and practice. Planning Practice and Research, 20, no. 2 (2005): 111 – 126. 7. Cole, L., and Foster, S. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. New York: NYU Press, 2000. 8. United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. New York: Public Data Access, 1987. 9. Hofrichter, R., ed. Toxic Struggles: The Theory and Practice of Environmental Justice. Philadelphia: New Society, 1993. 10. Duffy, J. The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990. 11. Schultz, S., and McShane, C. To engineer the metropolis: Sewers, sanitation and city planning in late nineteenth century America. Journal of American History, 65, no. 2 (1978): 389 – 411. 12. Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of the Great American City. New York: Vintage Books, 1961. 13. Angotti, T., and Hanhardt, E. Problems and prospects for healthy mixed - use communities in New York City. Planning Practice and Research, 16, no. 2 (2001): 145 – 154. 14. Beatley, T., and Manning, K. The Ecology of Place: Planning for Environment, Economy, and Community. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997. 15. Portney, K. E. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003. c02.indd 39c02.indd 39 6/3/09 11:57:41 AM6/3/09 11:57:41 AM 40 Environmental Justice Praxis 16. American Planning Association. Knowledge exchange: A smart growth reader. Available at http://myapa.planning.org/sgreader . Accessed February 2, 2009. 17. Duany, A., Plater - Zyberk, E., and Speck, J. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press, 2000. 18. Vuchic, V. R. Transportation for Livable Cities. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research, 1999. 19. Tolley, R. The Greening of Urban Transport. London: Belhaven, 1990. 20. Crewe, K., Ed. Special issue: Food and planning. Progressive Planning Magazine, 158 (Winter 2004). 21. Kaufman, J., Ed. Special issue: Planning for community food systems. Journal of Planning Education and Research (2004). 22. Gottlieb, R. Environmentalism Unbound. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002. 23. Angotti, T. It ’ s not the housing, it ’ s the people. Planners Network, 126 (November/ December 1997): 7 – 9. 24. Lawrence, R. J. Housing and health: From interdisciplinary principles to trans- disciplinary research and practice. Futures, 36 (2004): 417 – 502. 25. Berkman, L., and Kawachi, I., eds. Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 26. Vasquez, V., Minkler, M., and Shepard, P. Promoting environmental health policy through community based participatory research: A case study from Harlem, New York. Journal of Urban Health, 83, no. 1 (2006): 101 – 110. 27. Corburn, J. Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005. 28. Schön, D. A. The Refl ective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983. 29. Morello - Frosch, R., Pastor, M., Jr., Sadd, J., Porras, C., and Prichard, M. Citizens, science, and data judo: Leveraging secondary data analysis to build a community - academic collaborative for environmental justice in southern California. In B. A. Israel, E. Eng, A. J. Schulz, and E. A. Parker, Eds., Methods for Conduc ting Community - Based Participatory Research for Health, pp. 371 – 392. San Francisco: Jossey - Bass, 2005. 30. Pastor, M., Jr., Sadd, J., and Morello - Frosch, R. Still Toxic After All These Years: Air Quality and Environmental Justice in the San Francisco Bay Area. Prepa red for the Bay Area Environmental Health Collaborative by the Center for Justice, Tolerance & Community, University of California, Santa Cruz. Available at http:// ucsc.edu/docs/bay_fi nal.pdf . Published February 2007. Accessed June 26, 2008. c02.indd 40c02.indd 40 6/3/09 11:57:41 AM6/3/09 11:57:41 AM . pub- lic health. American Journal of Public Health, 94, no. 4 (2004): 541 – 5 46. 6. Corburn, J. Urban planning and health disparities: Implications for research and practice. Planning Practice and. steps to improve public participa- tion and engagement with urban development and community health in historically and culturally disenfranchised immigrant and refugee populations in complex urban. reports no infor- mation. Although this report is quite extensive and is an example of graduate - level, applied training and education in public health related to a land - use and urban planning