‘This is a wonderful book that should be on the desk of every architect and planner. It shows how

What has been the actual on-ground outcome of bioregional planning?
The influence of bioregional planning has been reflected in the establishment of catchment 
management authorities in Australia, Canada and the US. The term ‘bioregion’ has now become 
part of the standard vocabulary of planners and environmental managers. For instance, a planning 
conference on national planning was convened by a professional planning institute in Australia in 
1995.
34
But in the government adaptation of bioregionalism, there has also been a growing emphasis 
on volunteerism. In Australia, for example, there have been organizations like LandCare, WaterWatch, 
BushCare and WasteWise. These enlist communities to work together (virtually for free or for small 

---

210
Positive Development
grants) to reduce the environmental impacts of business-as-usual agriculture and industry. This has 
been viewed by some participants as a form of ‘volunteerany’.
35
In some cases, it is what we could call 
‘bottom–down’ planning – exacting more work from the already overworked. While many farmers are 
ecologically sensitive, they lack the time and resources to deal with the cumulative consequences of the 
limited choices they have in the marketplace. Transitioning to somewhat more sustainable systems, 
such as agroforestry, requires investment funds they may not have. At the same time, they have to 
compete with large investment management funds. When businesses contribute to environmental 
protection and/or eco-efficiency, such activities are usually tax deductible. Of course, it is sensible to 
compensate business for reducing impacts. However, we should not ask the community and farmers 
to clean up the impacts of past development systems for little or no compensation.
What processes are advocated by bioregionalists to fix this imbalance?
In bioregionalism, participation would begin with deciding how decisions should be made. After 
all, decision frameworks, to a large extent, influence the decisions themselves. Exactly how decision-
making processes should be institutionalized would vary according to the regional context and culture.
However, there are some shared and well-established processes in bioregional planning processes that 
would apply in most cases. These include:
•
Engaging local people in identifying and affirming the unique ecological and socio-cultural
qualities that it is important to preserve
• 
Determining what significant characteristics should form the basis for setting the boundaries
of the regional decision-making unit 
• 
Making inventories of the habitats and biodiversity elements that are especially important to 
the native ecology, as well as those that are threatened 
• 
Developing decision-making structures, as well as systems of production and settlement
patterns, that are responsive to the region’s unique cultural and biophysical characteristics 
Apart from establishing new regional boundaries of study, engagement and action, the underlying 
principles and practices of bioregionalism have not been widely implemented in ‘mainstream’ 
bioregional planning. Perhaps this is because bioregionalism is conveniently ‘bottom–up’ (which, as 
we suggested, can effectively be ‘bottom–down’). Bottom–up planning assumes the people currently 
on top are in the way and will move over. However, they will remain in the way until they are 
re-educated. The education of managers could be called ‘top–up’ planning.
36
Paradoxically, the 
community (the so-called ‘bottom’ in the participatory planning framework) will have to re-educate 
the ‘top’ (government and industry) from 
above
.