CHAPTER 39

Urban Greenery towards

Environmental
Improvement and
Sustainability
Pradeep Chaudhry and Vindhya P. Tewari
Arid Forest Research Institute, Jodhpur - 342005

The world is being increasingly urbanized. Based on the future projections, the present
millennium may rightly be termed as the urban millennium. It is expected that urban
areas in the developing countries will account for nearly 90 per cent of the projected
world population increase of 2700 million people between 1995 and 2030. By the
year 2030, almost 85 per cent of Latin Americans, 80 per cent of Europeans and 50
per cent of Afro-Asians will live in cities. The most explosive urban growth is expected
in Africa and Asia. Asia will have the largest urban population in the world, with
almost twice as many people living in the cities of Africa and Latin America (UN
1998). As the bulk of worlds population shifts from rural to urban areas, poverty is
becoming an increasingly urban phenomenon. As per the World Bank estimates, more
poor people will live in the cities than in rural areas in the coming years (WRI 1996).
Urban areas in the developing countries have multi-faceted problems like paucity of
safe water, inadequate waste management, pollution hazards, occupation and
degradation of sensitive lands, flooding and soil erosion in unauthorized settlements.
Multi-resource urban forest management is one of the solutions to these problems.
For example, in Durban (South Africa) multi-functional parks are a component of
slum improvement programmes. Parks are used for storm water catchments,
wastewater/sewage treatment, recreation and gardening (Kuchelmeister 2000).
Urban parks and gardens (or urban forests) can rightly be called as green
infrastructures that are responsible for various environmental, social and educational
benefits to the human society. Most of the products of urban forests are public goods.
The intangible functions or non-market benefits obtained from these public goods are
enjoyed by each resident, tourist and user. The experience of these benefits by any
single person does not exclude others from experiencing similar benefits. Although,
trees have played important role in human settlements throughout the history, their
full value to urban-dwellers has only recently been recognized. Trees and green spaces
are important for improving the living conditions in cities. Earlier, urban forestry in

626 | Environmental Security : Human & Animal Health

developed countries was considered almost exclusively on the basis of its aesthetic
merits. Now, a closer look is being given to the environmental services and quantifiable
economic benefits it provides (Kuchelmeister and Braatz 1993).
Urban forestry and its advantages
Many urban foresters in the industrialized countries use the terms urban greening
and urban forestry interchangeably (Miller 1997). In broader terms, urban forests
are regarded as the entire forest area influenced by the urban population. In a more
restricted sense, urban forestry relates to trees and woodlands and emerging woodlands
on vacant and derelict land (Kuchelmeister 2000). Urban forestry is a branch of
forestry with the objective of cultivation and management of trees for their potential
contributions to the physiological, sociological and economic well-being of the urban
society. One striking feature of the urban forestry is that trees have considerably
higher recreational and aesthetic value than in any other form of forestry. Urban
forests thus include a number of environs such as green belts, parks and gardens,
zoological parks, forest reserves, commercial and industrial green belts, avenues and
boulevards.
The research in urban greening has been advancing rapidly in North America through
concerted actions and substantial resource allocation. In Europe, despite a long
tradition of urban forestry, research is still very fragmented. In the developing nations,
urban forestry is still in its infancy and is strongly oriented towards the style of the
industrialized countries (Khosla 1996, Tewari 1995).
The list of goods and services that urban parks and gardens can provide is quite long.
Trees and green spaces help keep cities cool, act as natural filters and noise absorbers,
improve microclimates and the quality of natural resources including soil, water,
vegetation & wildlife. Trees contribute remarkably to the aesthetic beauty of the cities,
thereby, helping to maintain the psychological health of the inhabitants. The tangible
benefits of urban forests include availability of fruit, fuel, wood and small timber.
Systematic planting of street trees for timber production is widely practiced in China
and Malaysia (Webb 1998).
Environmental benefits
Urban forests benefit the environment in a number of ways providing better quality of
life to the inhabitants as mentioned below:
Cleaning of air
Air pollution is one of the major problems in urban areas. Plants help in removal of
pollutants from the air through absorption by the leaves, deposition of particulates
and aerosols on leaf surfaces, and fallout of particulates on the leeward (downwind)
side of the vegetation because of the slowing of air movement. Research on the removal
of airborne pollutants by vegetation shows that plants are effective sinks for pollution.

Chapter 39 Urban Greenery towards Environmental Improvement and Sustainability | 627

Keller (1979) has quantified 85 per cent reduction in lead behind a shelterbelt of
trees. Soil effectively absorbs gaseous pollutants, including carbon monoxide, sulphur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone and hydrocarbons. A 30 m belt of trees has been
found to intercept almost all dust in the air (Kuchelmeister and Braatz 1993). Trees
often mask fumes and disagreeable odours by replacing them with more pleasing
scents or by actually absorbing them.
Reduction in air temperature
Trees, shrubs and other vegetation help to control temperature extremes in urban
environment by modifying solar radiation. The shade of one large tree may reduce the
temperature of a given building to the same extent as would 15 air conditioners at
4220 kJ in a similar but unshaded building (NAA/ISA 1991). Generally, the climatic
effects of large green spaces are noticed at greater distances (100 to 500 m) than
those associated with smaller areas (Honjo and Takakura 1991). Urban forests can
influence the building energy use by modifying the local climate (Heisler 1986).
Measured and simulated energy reductions caused by vegetation around individual
buildings generally range from 5 to 15 per cent for heating and 5 to 50 per cent for
cooling (Huang et al. 1987, McPherson et al. 1988, Meier 1991).
Noise reduction
Noise is often referred to as invisible pollution. Excessive noise levels in most of the
major cities contribute to both physical and psychological damage. Trees help both by
absorbing and refracting or dissipating noise such as that produced by the heavy
vehicular traffic. In a research study undertaken in Taipei city of Taiwan, a positive
logarithmic relationship between relative noise reduction and the width, length and
height of the tree belts was found (Fang and Ling 2003).
Water conservation
Urban forests help in the protection of water supply, wastewater treatment and storm
water management. The financially, constrained cities facing wastewater treatment
challenge can integrate stabilization ponds in the park systems and reuse wastewater
for urban forestry. Reusing city wastewater not only recharges aquifers but also reduces
the demand exerted on scarce water reserves. The greatest potential of wastewater
reuse is in arid zones of the developing countries (Braatz 1994, Kuchelmeister 1998).
Soil conservation
Trees, shrubs, herbs and climbers are very helpful in soil conservation and in preventing
landslides in fragile ecosystems involving steep-terrain, lesser-vegetation and heavy
seasonal rains, thereby reducing the vagaries of human settlements (Brown 1991).

628 | Environmental Security : Human & Animal Health

Social benefits
Urban forests provide major social benefits to the population as given below.
Aesthetic quality improvement
It is the aesthetic and recreational value of trees, forests and parks that is directly
identified by most urban dwellers in the developing and developed countries alike.
Trees fulfill certain psychological, social and cultural needs of the people (Dwyer et
al. 1991). They help in easing tensions and improving psychological health as people
simply feel better living around trees. It has been demonstrated that hospital patients
placed in rooms with windows facing trees heal faster and require shorter hospital
stays (Ulrich 1984). When appropriately selected and placed, trees are effective in
screening out undesirable exposure and ensuring privacy, while permitting free visual
access to the rest of the landscape. Parks provide easily accessible recreational place
for people. Health parks and green areas provide opportunities for healthy physical
activity. In addition, the passive benefits to physical and mental health of an urban
landscape with trees have been documented. Enjoyment of green areas may help people
to relax or may give them fresh energy (Ulrich 1990).
Employment
Tree planting, especially in urban parks/gardens and boulevards, can be labour-intensive
and provide work opportunities for local people. In wealthier countries, arboriculture
is a significant business. With increasing environmental awareness among people in
India, demand for horticulturists, arboriculturists and urban landscapists is increasing
in comparison to earlier times.
Education
Urban parks and gardens are increasingly appreciated in environmental education. A
number of cities, both in developed and developing countries have botanical gardens,
zoological gardens, nature trails and visitor information centers that can inform and
educate people about local flora and fauna. Easily accessible trees, shrubs and
woodlands act as a vital resource for both formal and informal learning.
Recreation
Urban parks and gardens greatly enhance outdoor recreation. Lower income people
tend to visit city parks more frequently in comparison to wealthier citizens because
they lack the financial resources and leisure time to reach more distant recreation
areas. To be useful to low-income people, green areas should be within affordable
distance and must have the essential amenities for the residents.

Chapter 39 Urban Greenery towards Environmental Improvement and Sustainability | 629

Community building
Public involvement in tree planting helps in strengthening neighborhood among the
communities by providing people an opportunity to work together for the benefit of
local environment (Baines 1998).
Value addition to housing
Studies have shown increase in house prices where property is associated with urban
trees. The urban housing properties with associated green spaces and trees fetch
higher prices estimated at upto 5% higher in Hong Kong (Webb 1998) and in the
Finnish town of Salo (Tyrvainen 1999), and upto 18% higher in the United States
(Morales et al. 1983). It has been recognized that a tree-rich urban landscape is an
important attraction for new business and investors in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur
(Kuchelmeister 1998).
Urban greenery and sustainability
The evolution of urban forestry has been recognized as an essential means of
maintaining urban ecosystem health, improving human living conditions, fostering
harmonious human-nature relationship and ultimately achieving urban sustainability
(Carreiro et al. 2008). According to Brundtland Commission (1987), sustainable
development is defined as the development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable
urban development seeks to build communities that balance and sustain themselves
economically, socially and environmentally. A sustainable urban forest resource is
one of the essential components of this mission. Within this expansive mission is the
goal of sustainable community design, also known as smart growth, which in part
seeks to revitalize communities, reduce sprawl, and preserve open space, use land &
infrastructure efficiently.
One of the obvious indicators of urban sustainable development is the quality and
quantity of green spaces in the city (Huang et al. 1998, Schauman and Salisburry
1998). However, high density of human population in cities and the consequent need
for space for recreation, buildings and transportation may make the urban nature
conservation difficult.
Scientific understanding of how urban trees, parks, gardens and green spaces benefit
people has expanded substantially in recent years to include social, environmental
and economic domains in the urban development. However, despite increasing scientific
evidence, there is a lag in policy response in many government departments and
municipalities. Too often, parks, gardens and other city greens are managed on a siteby-site, haphazard basis. Urban forests can adequately be planned and stewarded
only if urban citizens and the elected decision-makers recognize and understand the
full range of services that the trees and green space provides. Expanded public value

630 | Environmental Security : Human & Animal Health

perceptions precede commitments of adequate budget and staff resources for urban
forest infrastructure (Wolf 2004).
It is pertinent to mention here that urban forestry assumes importance during last
few years in some of the Indian cities. To cite, Bangalore, known as the Garden city of
India, is, though, fast being converted into a concrete jungle, the government is trying
its best to provide the residents of Bangalore with greenery by continuous expansion
of parks and gardens. Lalbagh Botanical Garden, Cubbon Park and Cariappa Memorial
park are some of the most beautiful parks and gardens of this city that attract domestic
and international tourists. Chandigarh is another modern and planned city of India
whose urban greenery and landscaping is known worldwide. The city has more than
2000 parks and gardens making it one of the greenest cities of India. It is a historical
fact that Mughals developed a number of beautiful gardens in Delhi. The Jahanara
Garden or Queens Garden around Town Hall, Qudsia Bagh near the Inter-State Bus
Terminus (ISBT) of Kashmiri Gate, Roshanara Garden near Shakti Nagar, Shalimar
Bagh and Beriwala Bagh near Azad Market still exist in the city. The British rulers
also made extensive efforts to develop green areas in Delhi. Despite several
infrastructural projects and large-scale construction during the last ten years, forest
and tree cover of Delhi, which was 151 sq. km in the year 2001, has gone upto 283
sq. km by 2005 (FSI 2005). For this credit goes not only to government agencies but
also to local residents, who are becoming more aware about the role of trees in pollution
control and enhancing the quality of life. But still the fact remains that a lot is to be
done towards development of urban greenery in Indian cities compared to the developed
countries.
Urban greenery: Case studies
Environmental economists have developed theory and methods for assessing public
good values. In the beginning, many approaches were developed and first applied to
estimate non-market benefits of wild life sanctuaries, national parks and thick-forested
areas. Later on, these were found transferable to urban settings. Valuation studies in
the form of hedonic pricing, contingent valuation and travel-cost methodology have
addressed many facets of urban forest benefits, particularly in North America, Europe
and Australia.
Recreational opportunities and amenities are important human-use services generated
by urban green spaces. A study was conducted to assess monetary value of the nonpriced benefits (or recreational benefits) of urban parks and gardens of Guangzhou
city in China using contingent valuation method. Aggregate monetary value of urban
green spaces attained RMB 547 million (US$ 76.58 million) per year which outstripped
Guangzhous annual expenditures on urban green spaces by six times (Jim and Chen,
2006). Another study was carried out in two urban towns of Finland with the objective
to quantify the value attached to the urban forests in monetary terms and to analyze

Chapter 39 Urban Greenery towards Environmental Improvement and Sustainability | 631

the possibilities to use such information in urban land-use planning (Tyrvainen 1999).
Two economic valuation methods, hedonic pricing and contingent valuation, were
applied in two different urban environments of Joensuu and Salo. In the contingent
valuation (C.V.) survey, during 1995-96, residents attributes towards urban forests
as well as their willingness to pay (WTP) for the use of wooded recreational areas and
for small-forested parks were assessed. More than two-third of the respondents were
willing to pay for the use of recreational areas in both the towns. The relation between
property values and urban forestry benefits in Joensuu (a town in eastern Finland
with about 50,000 inhabitants) was examined. It was found that a 100 metre increase
in distance to the wooded recreational areas reduced the apartment price by FIM 42
(US$ 6) per square meter (Tyrvainen 1999). On an average, half of the people were
willing to pay to prevent the conversion of forested parks to other land-use, which
varied in Joensuu from 126 to 206 FIM and in Salo from 74 to 169 FIM per year per
household. It was also observed that good location and active management raised the
average WTP. Similar results were obtained in a Swedish survey by Hornsten and
Fredman (2000) where over 40% of the respondents preferred a shorter distance
between their residence and the closest recreational forest. A majority showed their
likeness to have a recreational forest within walking distance of their residence.
Recreational use value of the urban greens in India has not been extensively estimated.
Such a study was carried out in Chandigarh, a well-planned and modern city in north
India. The Forest Survey of India report says that the city has more than 35% of its
geographical area under tree cover, making it the greenest city in India (FSI 2005).
The mean WTP for the betterment of existing green landscape features and for creating
new parks and gardens for each reasonably earning family residing in the city was Rs.
153 per year for a period of five years, which converts to an annual recreational use
value of the citys forestry assets to Rs. 27.50 million at 2002-03 prices. The findings
are based on the contingent valuation (open-ended) study and primary data from
2358 residents (Chaudhry and Tewari 2008). Comparatively, clean and green
environment is attracting many people to settle down in the city. Among employment
opportunities, educational facilities, green cover of the city and other entertainment
facilities, citys parks, gardens, green avenues, etc., contributed to the extent of 55.65%
in peoples decision to reside or work permanently in Chandigarh. The other factors
together accounted for the rest of 44.35% (Chaudhry et al. 2007). Leisure Valley,
Rose Garden, Bougainvillea Garden, Garden of Fragrance, Poinsettia and Ixora Garden
in the city attract not only the residents and tourists but also the modern city-planners.
Implications of 74th Amendment of the Indian Constitution
The 74th Amendment of the Indian Constitution in 1992 envisages the urban forestry,
protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects as legitimate
responsibilities of the elected urban local bodies. It also provides for the constitution

632 | Environmental Security : Human & Animal Health

of district and metropolitan planning committees with predominant representation

given to the elected local representatives of the people. It is now mandatory for these
committees to prepare plans for economic development of social justice including
spatial planning, sharing of water and other physical and natural resources, integrated
development of infrastructure and environmental conservation. The subject of urban
forestry has been envisaged as the responsibility of the municipal authorities.
Municipal and urban development authorities are responsible for creating and
maintaining parks and other recreational spaces. However, most of them have not
undertaken any major greening projects and do not have any coherent programmes or
policies. In the absence of any strategy for securing the necessary space, protection of
the available space and allocation of the needed resources, cities are losing the
opportunity to create pleasant environment for their citizens. City greening can
contribute to more efficient urban management. Its benefits can help overcome some
of the most vexations problems such as encroachment of the roadsides, railway lines
and vacant lots which also attract refuse, creating unhealthy environment.
Conclusion
The appalling urban situations prevailing in the developing countries including most
of the Indian cities have been described by Seeland (2005). The deterioration of
living conditions, living standard and the quality of environment in urban and periurban areas in developing countries is not always acknowledged by the municipal
authorities as a deficient situation, but has widely become an accepted phenomenon.
Everybody seems to be adapted to the poor conditions. Public administration often
has severe financial and administrative constraints in providing proper living standards.
Besides, there is an inherent inertia in the administrative system and among the
decision-makers who show lack of motivation and fail to believe in change for the
better.
A greater awareness of the ecosystem services provided by a citys urban green
infrastructure must not only be fostered among practitioners and scientists, but also
among political leaders, decision-makers and the public at large, if our cities are to
become environmentally sustainable. More opportunities should be created to formally
and informally educate the public about the role that urban nature plays in preserving
a citys resources and energy, in improving air and water quality and in maintaining
our physical and psychological well-being. Such education provides the foundation
for change. Making cities more comfortable to live by incorporating more of the
natural world into our daily lives, and by working with nature to prevent or mitigate
problems that otherwise require costly engineered solutions, are the means of linking
quality of life for local urban residents with global sustainability for the human species
(Carreiro et al. 2008). Nearby trees and the urban forest constitute a generally
overlooked resource which is quite within the reach of educators, teachers, scientific
community and government machinery. However, it is not enough to know and explain

Chapter 39 Urban Greenery towards Environmental Improvement and Sustainability | 633

the benefits of an urban forest, the educators must begin to teach by saying that the
urban greens can help mitigate the negative effects of urban development. It should
be impressed upon that urban forests and greens are essential elements to the livability
of towns and cities (Vera de Bebette 2004). Finally, it may be concluded that urban
forest is not an option to be added later in a sustainable community plan, instead it is
a vital component of that plan from the very beginning for economic, social,
psychological and environmental reasons.
References
1.
2.

Baines C. 1998. Trees matter: the benefits of trees and woods in towns. National Urban
Forestry Unit, Wolverhampton, UK.
Braatz S. 1994. Urban Forestry in developing countries: Status and issues. In: Growing
greener communities. Proceedings of the sixth National Urban Forest Conference. Kollin C,
Mahon J and Frame L (eds.), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 14-18 September 1993,
American Forests, Washington DC, pp 85-88.

3.

Brown WJ. 1991. Landslide control on North Island, New Zealand. Geographical Review
81: 457-472.

4.

Brundtland Commission. 1987. Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987.
Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427, Development and International
Co-operation: Environment August 2, 1987.
Carreiro MM, Song YC and Wu J. 2008. Ecology, Planning and Management of urban
Forests: an International Perspective. Springer, New York.
Chaudhry P and Tewari VP. 2008. WTP Vs WTA for assessing recreational benefits of urban
forests: a case from a modern and planned city of a developing country. Forests, Trees and
Livelihoods 18: 213-231.
Chaudhry P, Singh B and Tewari VP. 2007. Non market valuation in developing countries:
Role of participant observation method in CVM analysis. Journal of Forest Economics 13:
259-275.
Dwyer JF, Schroeder HW and Gobster PH. 1991. The significance of urban trees and forests:
towards a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture 17: 276-284.
Fang CF and Ling DL. 2003. Investigation of the noise reduction provided by tree belts.
Landscape and Urban Planning 63: 187-195.
FSI. 2005. State of Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, Dehradun.
Heisler GM. 1986. Energy savings with trees. Journal of Arboriculture 12: 113-125.
Honjo T and Takakura T. 1991. Simulation of thermal effects of urban green areas on their
surrounding areas. Energy and Buildings 15-16: 433-446.
Hornsten L and Fredman P. 2000. On the distances to recreational forests in Sweden.
Landscape and Urban Planning 51: 1-10.
Huang J, Akbari H, Taha H and Rosenfeld A. 1987. The potential of vegetation in reducing
summer cooling loads in residential buildings. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology
26: 1103-1116.
Huang SL, Wong JH and Chen TC. 1998. A framework of indicator system for measuring

5.
6.

7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.

634 | Environmental Security : Human & Animal Health

Taipeis urban sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning 42: 15-27.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.
28.

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

Jim CY and Chen WY. 2006. Impacts of urban environmental elements on residential housing
prices in Guangzhou (China). Landscape and Urban Planning 78: 422-434.
Keller T. 1979. The possibilities of using plants to alleviate the effects of motor vehicles.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory Symposium Reports 513, Washington D.C.
Khosla PK. 1996. Ecofriendly trees for urban beautification. Vedams eBooks (P) Ltd., New
Delhi.
Kuchelmeister G and Braatz S. 1993. Urban forestry revisited. Unasylva 44: 13-18.
Kuchelmeister G. 1998. Urban forestry in the Asia-Pacific region- Status and prospectus.
Asia- Pacific Forestry sector outlook study. FAO Working Paper Series No. 44. FAO, Rome.
Kuchelmeister G. 2000. Trees for the urban millennium: urban forestry update. Unasylva
51: 49-55.
McPherson EG, Herrington LP and Heisler G. 1988. Impacts of vegetation on residential
heating and cooling. Energy and Buildings 12: 41-51.
Meier A. 1991. Strategic landscaping and air-conditioning savings: a literature review. Energy
and Buildings 15-16: 479-486.
nd
Miller RW. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and managing green spaces. 2 edition, Prentice
Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.
Morales DJ, Micher FR and Weber RC. 1983. Two methods of evaluating trees on residential
sites. Journal of Arboriculture 9: 21-24.
NAA/ISA. 1991. The importance of large tree maintenance in mitigating global climate
change. National Arborists Association and International Society of Arboriculture, Amherst,
USA.
Schauman S and Salisburry S. 1998. Restoring nature in the city: Puget Sound experiences.
Landscape and urban planning 42: 287-295.
Seeland K. 2005. Trees outside forests in an Indian urban environment. In: Multipurpose
Trees in the Tropics: Management and Improvement Strategies. Tewari VP and Srivastava
RL (eds.), Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, pp 486-492.
Tewari DN. 1995. Forests, gardens, parks and urban environment. International Book
Distributors, Dehradun.
Tyrvainen L. 1999. Monetary valuation of urban forest amenities in Finland. Doctoral
dissertation. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa, Finland.
Ulrich RS. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science
224: 420-421.
Ulrich RS. 1990. The role of trees in well-being and health. In: Proceedings of Fourth urban
forestry conference. Rodbell PD. (Ed.) St. Louis, Missouri, USA, Oct. 15-19, 1990.
UN. 1998. World urbanization prospects: the 1996 revision. United Nations, New York.
Vera de Bebette. 2004. Urban Forest can help mitigate the negative effects of urban
development. In: Proceedings of conference on sustainable education. Florida, USA.
Webb R. 1998. Urban and peri-urban forestry in S. East Asia: a comparative study of Hong
Kong, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. FAO, Rome.
Wolf KL. 2004. Economics and Public Value of urban forests. Urban Agriculture Magazine
13: 31-33.
WRI. 1996. World Resources 1996-1997. The Urban Environment. World Resources Institute,
Washington DC.