Sunday December 16, 2018
Home Opinion Urban Forestr...

Urban Forestry: The panacea to all problems and needs of urban society

0
//
Republish
Reprint

By Nithin Sridhar

generalife-palace-187865_1280

The Union Government has decided to start an “urban forest” program and through the program, it will plant trees in those areas that have been marked as forest lands but do not contain any trees.

Previously, on June 6th, Union Environment and Forest Minister, Prakash Javadekar had inaugurated Urban Forest Garden project at Warje, near Pune. The project was one of the initiatives of the Union Government under its urban afforestation programme that intends to increase tree cover around the cities.

These measures will go a long way in countering the hazardous effects of rapid urbanization.

What is Urban Forestry?

An urban forest is a forest or a group of trees that grow around any human settlement, be it a city, a town or a village and management of such forests constitutes “Urban Forestry”.

Urban Forestry can be defined as: “the art, science, and technology of managing trees and forest resources in and around urban community ecosystems for physiological, sociological, economic, and aesthetic benefits that trees provide for society.” 

The urban forests play a very vital role in improving the quality of life in those areas. They provide various benefits to the ecosystem- like removal of pollutants, biodiversity conservation, and heat reduction. They provide tangible and intangible economic outputs as well. Hence, they are inevitable for the overall development of an urban center.

What is the need for Urban Forestry?

Rapid urbanization has led to severe depletion of forest cover in the last few centuries. The depletion of forest cover has in-turn adversely affected the ecological balance and the economic stability of the society. The health of the people has been affected as well.

In 1900, 10% of the global population was living in urban centers. But it is now more than 50% and is expected to rise up to 67% in another 50 years.

The urban population of India has increased from 17% in 1951 to 31% in 2011 and is expected to reach 55% by the year 2015.

This concentration of human population in various urban centers results in various environmental concerns- like increased air and water pollution, increased temperature, destruction of natural habitat, increased emission of greenhouse gases, and an overall ecological imbalance.

But these harmful effects of urbanization can be mitigated by adopting urban forestry.

Urban forests outside India

Many countries have successfully employed the concept of Urban forest in their cities. Although there is a difference in opinion among experts regarding the ideal per capita tree cover area that is required for a city, it can be observed that many cities which are famous for their green cover have maintained a green coverage of 20 to 40% of geographical area and a per capita green space of 25 to 100 sq. metres. 

The International minimum standard as suggested by World Health Organization (WHO) is 9 sq. metres of green open space per city dweller.

A study conducted in 386 cities of Europe revealed the green space coverage as ranging from 1.9% to 46% with an average of 18.6%. The urban green space per capita varied from as low as 3 sq. metres to as high as 300 sq. metres. The average tree canopy area over urban areas in United States is 27%. In 2006, China had an urban green cover of 32.54%.

China is one of the best examples of successful implementation of Urban Forestry

Though it went through rapid urbanization in last few decades, its urban green cover has not decreased. In 1986, it had a green space coverage of 16.9% which increased to 20.1% in 1991. It further increased to 23% in 2000 and 32.54% in 2006.

By such sustained efforts at urban forestry, China made sure that the harmful effects of its industrialization and urbanization were mitigated to some extent.

Urban forests within India

The situation of Urban forests across various Indian urban centers is not very encouraging except in few areas. Delhi has a forest cover around 20%. Chandigarh stands at 14.9%. Gandhinagar, municipal areas of Ahmedabad and Vadodara stand at 53.9%, 4.6%, and 16.29% respectively.

According to this report, the green cover in Bengaluru Urban district and Bengaluru Rural is estimated at 6.85% and 13.96% respectively. The figures for Chennai, Hyderabad, and Jaipur are 6.25%, 5%, and 4.49% respectively, and Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban stand at 1.21% and 26.91% respectively.

According to India State of Forest Report, 2013, urban tree cover exists on 12,790 sq.km out of the total 77,997 sq.km of urban area. That is, only around 16.4% of urban area is covered by trees. This is quite below the global standards of 20-40% forest coverage.

Further, the situation is very worrisome in places like Hyderabad and Jaipur which have very low percent of tree cover.

Challenges to implement Urban Forestry:

There are significant challenges that need to be addressed before urban forestry programmes can be successfully implemented. The very first challenge is to change the attitude of all stakeholders; be it general public or politicians.

The issues of environment are often put forward as being obstacles to growth and development.

This mindset needs to change.

People must be made to realize that development and environment are not contradictory. Instead, true development is not possible without taking into account the environmental impact of every activity.

Therefore, the planning and developing of a city with all its buildings and amenities should go hand in hand with the conservation of ecological balance.

The Union government appears to be aware of these challenges. In its “Draft Guidelines for conservation, development and management of Urban Greens”, it lists down various issues related to the conservation of urban greenery:

  1. Absence of long term planning resulting in frequent changes in land use. As a result there is lack of integration of trees/ greens with planned development process and trees are often planted as an afterthought.
  2. Land covered with trees is viewed as loss when compared to the land put to commercial and infrastructural uses.
  3. Limited space available for tree planting. Trees are often viewed as obstructions to development and therefore become the first casualty in the process.
  4. Water scarcity, refractory soil and stressful growth conditions impact proper growth and health of the trees, leading to high cost of development and maintenance. Lack of trained manpower for the management of greens poses a serious problem.
  5. High public pressure on urban greens due to high floating population. Urban poverty and homelessness encourage squatting in open areas reserved for trees.
  6. Lack of respect, sensitivity and care from different sections of the society. Green spaces, young plantations, and saplings are prone to vandalism.

Benefits of Urban Forestry

Urban Forestry has innumerable benefits ranging from economic to ecological. Its ecological benefits include reduction in temperature, rise in urban areas due to heat island effect, reduction in CO2 emissions through photosynthesis, removal of other air pollutants, prevention of soil erosion, recharge of groundwater, and stabilization of soil. They act as home to many animals and birds and hence help in conservation of biodiversity.

For example, it has been reported that urban trees store around 700 million tons of carbon in the border areas of USA. A total of 711,000 metric tons of air pollution removal has been achieved by US urban trees.

A study showed that the forest ecosystems of Beijing could intercept approximately 1.43 billion cubic metres of annual rainfall and 277.82 million cubic metres of soil water under ideal conditions, and supply 286.67 million cubic metres of fresh water.

Further, reduced pollution and increased biodiversity will improve the quality of human life.

Many of the diseases that are caused due to water and air pollution can be reduced as well. People will have a place to relax and de-stress which will in turn improve their emotional health.

Apart from this, the urban forests provide various intangible benefits.

Urban shade trees can help in reduction of building air conditioning demand and the savings may be as high as US$ 200 per tree. A 2010 study revealed that the total economic value of water conservation provided by Beijing’s forests was US$ 0.63 Billion.

In a study conducted in China, the value of intangible forest environmental services was six times that of forest material goods.

Hence, urban trees play a very vital role in maintaining ecological balance and improving human life. Furthermore, they impart various economic benefits. They provide tangible economic items like firewood, timber, fruits, medicinal products etc. They further act as places for recreational activity. Therefore, forest tourism can be made a source of wealth generation.

Therefore, Urban forestry is a necessity and not a necessary evil. It is not an economically unprofitable initiative. Instead, it can provide enormous economic benefits and at the same time help conserve environment and improve human life. Therefore, the measures being taken by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest is in the right direction.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 NewsGram

Next Story

U.S. President Donald Trump’s Take on Climate Change

Trump's backpedaling on the U.S. commitment raises questions about the prospects.

0
Pollution, U.S., Trump
The Dave Johnson coal-fired power plant is silhouetted against the morning sun in Glenrock, Wyoming. VOA

“I’m not going to put the country out of business trying to maintain certain standards that probably don’t matter,” President Donald Trump told VOA when asked about the economic impacts of climate change.

When not denying its existence, the Trump administration’s approach to
climate change essentially comes down to three arguments: the United States has already cut its greenhouse gas emissions more than other countries, regardless of any international agreement; regulations to cut emissions come with high costs and few benefits; and those regulations would put the United States at a disadvantage because other countries will not follow.

“When you look at China, and when you look at other countries where they have foul air,” Trump added, “we’re going to be clean, but they’re not, and it costs a lot of money.”

As U.N. climate negotiations get under way in Poland to work out rules for implementing the Paris climate agreement — from which Trump intends to withdraw the United States — experts weigh in on the administration’s claims.

Pollution, Trump
A bus gives off exhaust fumes in Alexandria, Virginia. VOA

Emissions cuts

It’s true that the United States has reduced its greenhouse gas production more than any other country. U.S. emissions peaked in 2005. In the last decade, they have fallen by about 13 percent, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

But the United States was the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases until 2006. And, others have made bigger cuts by percentage. Hungary’s levels, for example, decreased 14 percent.

U.S. emissions started to fall when the fracking boom took off.

The new technique of hydraulic fracturing turned the United States into a major natural gas producer. As the price of natural gas has dropped, it has been steadily replacing coal as the dominant fuel for electricity generation. Because burning natural gas produces far less carbon dioxide than coal, greenhouse gas emissions have decreased.

More recently, renewable sources such as solar and wind power have started to make inroads on the power grid.

Donald Trump, democrats, government,
U.S. President Donald Trump. VOA

While U.S. emissions have fallen since the 2000s, China’s have soared.

The country pursued astonishing economic growth with an enormous investment in coal-fired power plants. China is now the leading producer of greenhouse gases by far, roughly doubling U.S. output.

Cost-benefit

Trump has argued that regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions would hobble the U.S. economy. He has moved to undo the Obama administration’s proposed rules on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances, among others.

Critics question whether those regulations would cost as much Trump suggests.

“None of these policies were going to have dramatic increases in the prices that consumers would see,” Duke University public policy professor Billy Pizer said. He added that normal price swings would likely swamp the cost of the regulations Trump targets.

Trump, pollution
Paris depends on countries following through on increasingly ambitious emissions cuts. Pixabay

The emissions reductions the Obama administration pledged in Paris “were built largely on a continuation of the coal-to-gas transition and a continuation of growth in renewable energy that’s already happening,” said Alex Trembath of the Breakthrough Institute research center. As such, he added, they “don’t imply a large cost. In fact, they imply a marginal increased benefit to the U.S.”

Those benefits come, for example, because burning less coal produces less air pollution, which lowers health costs.

Not to mention the direct results of climate change: wildfires, floods, droughts and so on.

“We have enough science and enough economics to show that there are damages resulting from us releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. We know that that is not a free thing,” University of Chicago public policy professor Amir Jina said. “And yet, we are artificially setting it as free because we’re not paying the price of that externality.”

He said economists nearly unanimously support a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade program or some other way to put a price on carbon emissions.

Collective action

Few nations have taken the necessary steps to meet the emissions reduction pledges they made in Paris, according to the most recent United Nations emissions gap report.

Paris Agreement, CLimate, trump
Developed countries are being urged to honour Paris Agreement. Flickr

Even those pledges would fall far short of the Paris goal of limiting global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the report adds. Reaching that target will take “unprecedented and urgent action.” A 2016 report said an additional $5.2 trillion investment in renewable energy will be necessary worldwide over the next 25 years.

Trump’s statement — “we’re going to be clean, but they’re not, and it costs a lot of money” — sums up why nations are reluctant to act: no one wants to take on burdens that they think others won’t.

“It’s the thing which has been dogging action on climate change for generations,” Jina said.

“We only really solve the problem if everybody acts together,” he added. “And if enough people are not acting, then we don’t.”

Paris depends on countries following through on increasingly ambitious emissions cuts.

Each country decides what it is willing to do. Every five years, countries come together and show their progress.

Climate Change, Trump, disasters
President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. VOA

“You over time build confidence in each other,” Pizer said. “Ideally, you ratchet up the commitments as you see your actions reciprocated by other countries.”

Trump’s backpedaling on the U.S. commitment raises questions about the prospects.

However, the first of these check-ins is five years away. Trump can’t formally withdraw the United States from the agreement until 2020.

Also Read: Paris Adopts Climate Action Plan, Aims to Achieve a ‘Zero-Carbon’ Future

Pizer notes that the predecessor to the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, failed in part because it imposed caps on countries’ carbon emissions, and most of the world balked.

“In my mind, this is the best we can do,” he said. “If there were a different way to do it, I’d be all over that.” (VOA)