(The original version of this article was written for ISA Hong Kong Chapter Newsletter Vol. 2)
In last article we have briefly reviewed the fundamentals of Urban
Forestry. We will continue to elaborate
the concept through understanding the situation in Hong Kong this time. It is important to acknowledge and evaluate
our diverse urban forest asset as the foundation for developing a strategic
plan.
Notwithstanding
being a small city, there are quite diverse and relatively sufficient area of
urban forest to sustain the living quality of more than 7.3M population. Merely our country parks have covered more
than 40% of total land area of the territory.
Our current urban forest asset was mostly established since 1950s
through massive plantation, planned greenery programmes, or by unintended
neglect in some areas. Together with
parks, gardens and other green open space, the per capita urban forest area in
a board sense is 105 sq. m (Annon, 2011), a figure quite high amongst cities in
the South-east Asia (Table 1). However,
the figure would drop to just ~2.5 sq. m (comparable to some cities in
developing countries) if country parks are excluded (Jim, 1998).
City
|
Population
(density person/km2)
|
Sq.
m/capita (year)
|
UN’s target
(World Health Organization, 2010)
|
-
|
Min. 9.5
Ideal 50
|
Hong
Kong
|
7M
(6362.2)
|
105
(including country parks)
|
Bangkok
|
5.7M
(3607.4)
|
3
|
Beijing
|
17.6M
(1069.4)
|
88
|
Deihi
|
17.4M
(11733.0)
|
19
|
Guangzhou
|
7.9M
(2067.5)
|
166
|
Hanoi
|
6.5M
(1935.1)
|
11
|
Jakarta
|
9.2M
(13889.9)
|
2
|
Kuala
Lumpur
|
1.7M
(6811.1)
|
44
|
Manila
|
11.6M
(18165.1)
|
5
|
Seoul
|
10.5M
(17288.8)
|
23
|
Singapore
|
5M
(7025.2)
|
66
|
Taipei
|
2.7M
(9789.9)
|
50
|
Tokyo
|
13M
(5946.9)
|
11
|
Table 1 – Comparison of green open space
accessible by the public (including planted areas with trees)
(Annon, 2011)
Our
urban forest has provided various services to the society of Hong Kong (Fig.
1). There are quite diverse components
of urban forest locally (Wong, 2017) and they have some shared services to the
city, such as carbon sequestration, reducing heat island effect, improving
physical and physiological health of the citizens. On the other hand, some services are quite
specific to particular sites. For
example, roadside tree rows for shading and screening, slope planting for
erosion control, roof top planting for reducing energy consumption, country
park for conservation and water catchment.
Through
often taken for granted or even being unnoticed, such diverse functions of urban
forest are comparably important to the services that other city infrastructures
such as roadworks, water and power supply, drainage, hospital provide. In the past, budget and standard for
designing, building and maintenance of urban forest (green infrastructure) were
very low when compared with other aspect.
Tree planting (usually absorbed in landscaping) mostly if not all
comprise less than (if not much less than) 10% of the total contract sum of any
development project. As plantings were
generally classified as “landscape” (amenity, or aesthetic) only, the real
services of them were always masked.
With underestimated importance of urban forest, then the performance
standard and requirements on personnel, who were responsible for stages from
planning, design, implementation to maintenance were insufficient for the actual
need. Appropriate planting space,
similarly had to give way to other infrastructure such as utilities readily
without bother formulating a compromised or perhaps a win-win option.
The
old mind set needs to be changed fundamentally so that “urban forestry” under
promotion will be on the right track.
There is no corner-cut, but wise direction will be achieved with
collective mind and innovative trials.
An
increased expectation on urban forest’s quality and services implies possibility
of an increased budget, which would sound a burden to municipal authorities. Currently, majority of urban forest is solely
funded and managed by the government.
While the public has little involvement, noise is made quite often on
the quality of government’s greening and tree management work. It appears far from satisfactory to rely
solely on public funding in management of green infrastructure up to public’s
expectation. In fact, the community has
become highly enthusiastic and involved in greening issues in recent
years. This trend has already created an
environment that government-community collaboration in urban forestry is
becoming possible, a situation that had never happened before. There are many possibilities in collaboration
and here listed 2 for further exploration:
1.
Active participation of community on urban forestry management
There
is long practice in many developed countries that community was engaged to
actively participate in the planning, design, implementation and maintenance of
pieces of urban forest. Entrusting
pieces of abandoned lands to non-profits or community groups which have strong
mission in greenery is one way. Partnering
of municipality and these groups in planting and maintenance works is another direction
that can be explored in already-established green space.
The
Plantation Enrichment Programme (PEP) at Country Parks by Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department is a frontier scheme locally in which
different groups from the community are engaged and they actively participate
from planning, design to hands-on planting and maintenance work for a
relatively long period of time, with funding raised from different sectors of
the community. The scheme has formed a
good model for reference in other urban forestry programmes.
2.
Alternative funding from the community
Upgrading
the standard of care to urban forest and their function involves a lift in
recurrent expenses. There are various
private funding sources which have strong mission in serving the community and
improving the environment. A matching of
them with the real need is necessary for wise use of resources. A popular local electronic-payment system had
launched a scheme for some years in funding tree planting (for each
transaction) at private locations and small communities. Such kind of initiative would have more
effective and positive impact if there are well coordination and stronger
support from the authorities which own the largest pieces of land. Nevertheless, this scheme was ground-breaking
and would also become a valuable experience for future fund-raising scheme.
Being a component of
city’s infrastructure, urban forest requires a strong team of professions in
planning, design, implementation and maintenance, as in the case of roadworks,
drainage, electricity, etc. Different
stage in urban forestry requires the collaboration of various professions and
their importance also varies depending on site nature (habitat) (Miller, et
al., 2015). Fig. 2 elaborates the general
concept further for the situation of Hong Kong.
Fig. 2 – Flow chart for
urban forestry including resources and involvement of professions.
Nearly 10 professions
should be involved in holistic urban forest management. In the planning and design stage the goal of
the urban forest is laid down in response to the society needs. This involves urban planner and usually
ecologist as well for benefiting the environment in a bundle. While trees are the backbone of urban forest,
the urban forester / municipal arborist plans for the life cycle of the forest,
designs the appropriate species to deliver different functions and enhancement,
and determine the required space.
Landscape architect considers the leisure and recreation needs of users
and plans for the site function and spatial arrangement, and designs for other
associated facilities. Engineers from
different specialities contribute when there is need in coordination with other
infrastructures during the development.
During the construction
stage, all building / planting works delivered are supervised by various
professions on their specific aspects.
Arborists, ecologists and horticulturists may usually get involved in
many practical works during the planting and establishment stage.
Compared with the
previous two stages, maintenance stage of urban forest lasts much longer in
time before the components are to be replaced.
The timeframe is likely much longer than any other built infrastructure
(e.g. roadworks, drainage) in general.
While there are smaller plants which may be replaced after a few years,
the backbone – trees usually last for more than 80 years in urban scenario
without interference or damage. However,
growth of trees requires different level of care so that their services to
human will be maintained or preferably enhanced along age. The larger the tree size is, the higher
chance would it come into conflict with human and other facilities. More professionals in arboriculture then join
the team - arborists, tree workers and utilities specialists.
As the Seoul Action Plan
has expected, awareness of the functions and benefits of urban forests and
trees would increase urban forestry investment (FAO, 2017). With increased budget, the services that the
existing green space can provide to the city would be advanced too – which will
benefit not only the city dwellers, but the overall climate of the globe. The key players should acknowledge this movement and get prepared for the
change.
Chiky, Cheuk Yuet Wong
Immediate Past President, ISA Hong
Kong Chapter
Education Committee Chairperson
Education Committee Chairperson
Reference:
·
Annon. (2011). Asian Green City
Index. Economist Intelligence Unit,
London
·
EPS iDo website: https://www.eps.com.hk/ido/chi/
·
FAO (2017).
Seoul Action Plan for the Development of Urban Forestry in
Asia-Pacific Region. Released in 2nd
Asia-Pacific Urban Forestry Meeting 13-15 Sept 2017.
·
JIM, C.Y. (1998). Impact of Intensive
Urbanization on Trees in Hong Kong. Environmental
Conservation. 25(2):146-159
·
Kuchelmeister, G. (1998). Urban
Forestry: Present Situation and Prospects in the Asia and Pacific region, FAO
Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Forestry Policy and Planning Division, Rome
·
Miller, R.W., Hauer, R.J., Werner,
L.P. (2015). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Waveland
Press, Long Grove, IL. pp.17-22
·
Wong, C.Y. 2017. Change of Forest Role and the Approach of Management in Hong Kong.
Proceeding of 2nd Asia Pacific Urban Forestry Meeting. Food and Agriculture
Organization, UN
·
World Health Organization (2010).
Urban Planning, Environment and Health: From Evidence to Policy Action. Meeting
Report, http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/114448/E939 87.pdf?ua=1
No comments:
Post a Comment