Copyright © 2012 Sanchayan Nath.
I had written this article as a term paper for a course in Urban Forest Management (V580-E522) at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), Indiana University Bloomington during Spring 2012 (the 12th April, 2012).
Abstract
In this paper, I delve into scholarly literature to understand how urban forestry has been conceptualized by Indian scholars. The questions I seek to answer are – What kind of terminology is associated with urban forestry in India? Which characteristics of urban forests are associated with such terminology? How do these terminologies compare to those used in Europe and in the United States of America? What are the differences and commonalities in these terminologies? The most frequently-used conceptual term used to refer to urban forestry in the Indian context is urban green spaces, the most frequently-used structural component considered in the literature is “trees”, the most frequently-used locational characteristics considered is “roadsides / avenues / streets” and the most frequently-cited benefit considered is “energy / ecological / environmental services”. While most scholars recognize the structural (vegetation) elements, the locations considered on the urban-rural continuum, and the benefits generated constructs with regard to urban forests, the management activities involved is not given its due importance. Like Europe, in Indian too, a wide variety of terminology is used to refer to urban forests. While in North America “all woody and associated vegetation” are considered to be a part of urban forests, most scholars studying Indian urban forests have tended to define India urban forests mainly as a collection of trees while neglecting the “associated vegetation”. The multifunctional nature of benefits provided by urban forests is equally acknowledged in the North American, European and the Indian context. However, Indian scholars have tended to add a few additional benefits – for instance, “socio-economic uplift”, “humanizes the city” etc. While in North America and Europe, areas in close proximity to cities are considered while evaluating urban forestry, in the Indian case, scholars have been ambiguous about vegetation in peri-urban areas.
Introduction
The origins of urban forestry can be traced to various English books on arboriculture published in 1578, 1597 and 1662 (Gerhold 2005). Street trees began to be considered an essential part of the urban landscape in North America and in Europe during the 17th and the 18 century (Gerhold 2007).
The first effort to systematically define the term “urban forestry” was made by Jorgensen in 1970. He defined it as, “urban forestry is a specialized branch of forestry and has as its objectives the cultivation and management of trees for their present and potential contribution to the physiological, sociological and economic well-being of urban society. These contributions include the overall ameliorating effect of trees on their environment, as well as their recreational and general amenity value” (Konijnendijk et al. 2006). (Clark et al. 1997) in their landmark paper on urban forest sustainability defined a sustainable urban forest as “the naturally occurring and planted trees in cities which are managed to provide the inhabitants with a continuing level of economic, social, environmental and ecological benefits today and into the future”.
However, scholars are divided on the correct way to define urban forestry (Clark et al. 1997; Konijnendijk et al. 2006). (Konijnendijk 2003) observes that there is a “wide variation in definitions” of the term across countries in Europe. (Knuth 2006) documents a similar wide variation in definitions of urban forestry across countries in West and Central Asia.
Research question and objective of paper
The aim of this study is to extend the debate to India.
In this paper, I delve into scholarly literature to understand how the urban forestry has been conceptualized by Indian scholars.
The questions I seek to answer are –
- What kind of terminology is associated with urban forestry in India?
- Which characteristics of urban forests are associated with such terminology?
- How do these terminologies compare to those used in Europe and in the United States of America? What are the differences and commonalities in these terminologies?
Framework used for conceptualization
(Konijnendijk et al. 2006) state that the three components for the comparison of urban forestry terminology are – the structural (vegetation) elements, the locations considered on the urban-rural continuum and the benefits generated. Similarly, (Clark et al. 1997) use the following four questions from (Webster 1993) to conceptualize urban forests –
What objects, conditions, and values are to be sustained? What is the range of forests activities that contribute to sustainable development? What is the geographic scale at which sustainable development can be most usefully applied? What is the relationship of sustainable development for (urban forests) to new technology, effectively applied research and investment in forest management?
There is broad overlap between these questions and the three components used by (Konijnendijk et al. 2006). Therefore, for the purpose of this paper, I use the following concepts for comparison – the structural (vegetation) elements, the locations considered on the urban-rural continuum, the benefits generated (adapted Konijnendijk et al. 2006) and the management activities involved (adapted from Clark et al. 1997).
Terminology associated with Indian urban forestry
In this section, I study different terminology that has been used to describe urban forestry in Indian scholarly literature. I then identify the various characteristics of urban forestry used in these definitions and group them into the four conceptual categories identified in the previous section – a) the structural (vegetation) elements, b) the locations considered on the urban-rural continuum, c) the benefits generated and d) the management activities involved.
The most frequently-used conceptual term used to refer to urban forestry in the Indian context is urban green spaces (Kotwal 2001; Budruk et al. 2009; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and Gopal 2011; Bhat et al. 2010; Singh et al 2010; Ugle et al 2010; Balooni et al. 2011; Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Chaudhry et al 2011).
The other terms include urban forest (Long and Nair 1999; Bhat et al. 2010; Singh et al 2010; Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Chaudhry et al 2011), urban greenery (Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Sundaram 2011), urban greenbelts (Gowda et al. 2008; Prajapati and Tripathi 2008), urban greenness (Prasad and Badarinath 2004), urban vegetation (Prasad and Badarinath 2004), urban green areas (Gowda et al. 2008), urban green-cover (Sundaram 2011), avenue plantations (Gowda et al. 2008) and TOF or trees outside forests (Long and Nair 1999[1]; Kotwal 2001)[2].
The structural (vegetation) elements
The most frequently-used structural component considered in the literature is “trees” (Kohli et al. 1998; Long and Nair 1999; Prasad and Badarinath 2004; Gowda et al. 2008; Prajapati and Tripathi 2008; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and Gopal 2011; Bhat et al. 2010; Ugle et al 2010; Balooni et al. 2011; Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Chaudhry et al 2011).
The other structural components include “cultivars” (Sudha and Ravindranath 2000), “shrubs and ground vegetation” (Balooni et al. 2011), “woody vegetation” (Sudha and Ravindranath 2000), “vegetation” (Budruk et al. 2009) and “forest resources” (Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Chaudhry et al 2011).
The locations considered on the urban-rural continuum
The most frequently-used locational characteristics considered in the literature is “roadsides / avenues / streets” (Kohli et al. 1998; Sudha and Ravindranath 2000; Kotwal 2001; Gowda et al. 2008; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and Gopal 2011; Bhat et al. 2010).
The other locational characteristics include “parks” (Kohli et al. 1998; Sudha and Ravindranath 2000; Kotwal 2001; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and Gopal 2011; Singh et al 2010), “woodlots” (Kotwal 2001), “botanical gardens / national parks / sanctuaries / forest reserves” (Sudha and Ravindranath 2000); (Balooni et al. 2011), “gardens / landscaped private properties” (Kohli et al. 1998; Sudha and Ravindranath 2000; Kotwal 2001; Gowda et al. 2008; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and Gopal 2011; Singh et al 2010; Balooni et al. 2011), “homesteads / in residential compounds / backyards” (Kohli et al. 1998; Sudha and Ravindranath 2000; Balooni et al. 2011), “orchards” (Kotwal 2001), “along waterways” (Nagendra and Gopal 2010) (Nagendra and Gopal 2011), “fields / open land used as a buffer zone” (Kotwal 2001; Gowda et al. 2008), “premises of institutions, industries / commercial zones” (Kohli et al. 1998; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and Gopal 2011), “premises of religious places / churchyards / sacred locations” (Kohli et al. 1998; Kotwal 2001; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and Gopal 2011), “public places” (Bhat et al. 2010; Singh et al 2010), “encircles/ within the built-up area” (Gowda et al. 2008; Bhat et al. 2010; Singh et al 2010), “outskirts of cities or towns / associated lands that contribute to the environment of populated places” (Kohli et al. 1998; Sudha and Ravindranath 2000), “in patches/ scattered in the landscape” (Sudha and Ravindranath 2000; Kotwal 2001) and “in and around urban community ecosystems” (Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Chaudhry et al. 2011).
The benefits generated
The most frequently-cited benefit considered in the literature is “energy / ecological / environmental services” (Kohli et al. 1998; Kotwal 2001; Prasad and Badarinath 2004; Gowda et al. 2008; Prajapati and Tripathi 2008; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and
Gopal 2011; Bhat et al. 2010; Singh et al 2010; Ugle et al 2010; Balooni et al. 2011; Sundaram 2011; Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Chaudhry et al. 2011).
The other benefits considered in the literature are “socio-cultural / socio-religious” (Kotwal 2001; Gowda et al. 2008; Budruk et al. 2009; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and Gopal 2011; Bhat et al. 2010; Singh et al 2010; Ugle et al 2010; Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Chaudhry et al. 2011), “aesthetics”, (Kohli et al. 1998; Kotwal 2001; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and Gopal 2011; Bhat et al. 2010; Balooni et al. 2011; Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Chaudhry et al. 2011), “psychological” (Kotwal 2001; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and Gopal 2011; Ugle et al 2010; Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Chaudhry et al. 2011), “economic” (Kotwal 2001; Nagendra and Gopal 2010; Nagendra and Gopal 2011; Singh et al 2010; Balooni et al. 2011; Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Chaudhry et al. 2011), “socio-economic uplift” (Kohli et al. 1998), “recreational” (Bhat et al. 2010; Balooni et al. 2011), “health” (Balooni et al. 2011) and “humanize(s) the city” (Gowda et al. 2008).
The management activities involved
Only three pieces of scholarly output recognize this aspect – (Singh et al 2010) in the form of financial / technical /governance activities involved and (Chaudhry and Tewari 2011; Chaudhry et al. 2011) in the form of the “art, science and technology of managing trees and forest resources”. However, a few other papers do acknowledge that urban forests are shaped by human activities (Sudha and Ravindranath 2000; Kotwal 2001; Prasad and Badarinath 2004).
Thus, to summarize, while most scholars recognize the structural (vegetation) elements, the locations considered on the urban-rural continuum, and the benefits generated constructs with regard to urban forests, the management activities involved are not given its due importance in the Indian context.
Comparison with Urban Forestry and Related Concepts in North America and Europe
Urban forestry and related concepts in North America and Europe are summarized in Tables 1 (adapted from Konijnendijk et al. 2006) and Table 2 (adapted from Konijnendijk 2003) in Appendix 1.
Like Europe, in Indian too, a wide variety of terminology is used to refer to urban forests. While in North America “all woody and associated vegetation” are considered to be a part of urban forests, most scholars studying Indian urban forests have tended to define India urban forests mainly as a collection of trees while neglecting the “associated vegetation”. The definition in the European context is narrow too, but the focus in primarily on woodlands. The multifunctional nature of benefits provided by urban forests is given equal importance in the North American, European and the Indian context. However, Indian scholars have tended to add a few additional benefits – for instance, “socio-economic uplift”, “humanizes the city” etc. While in North America and Europe, areas in close proximity to cities are considered while evaluating urban forestry, in the Indian case, scholars have been ambiguous with regard to vegetation in peri-urban areas. Similarly, management activities or driving forces are have been neglected by scholars studying Indian urban forests, in sharp contrast to studies on North American or European forests.
Conclusion
In studies of Indian urban forests, the most frequently-used conceptual term used to refer to urban forestry in the Indian context is urban green spaces, the most frequently-used structural component considered in the literature is “trees”, the most frequently-used locational characteristics considered in the literature is “roadsides / avenues / streets” and the most frequently-cited benefit considered in the literature is “energy / ecological / environmental services”. Thus, although the ambiguity that surrounds definitions of urban forestry in North America and Europe, prevails in the Indian context too, studies on urban forests in India have not been as broad based as is the case in North America and Europe.
Bibliography
Bhat, S.S., Bhandary, J. M. and Fasihuddin, S. (2010), Urban Tree Diversity of Karwar, Karnataka, Lake 2010: Wetlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change, http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/lake2010/theme3/shivanand_bhatt.pdf, last accessed on the 4th of April, 2012
Balooni, K., Gangopadhyay, K., and Kumar, B.M. (2011). Urban Sustainability and Changing Private Green Spaces: Some Insights from an Indian City, Asia Research Institute, Working Paper Series No. 169
Budruk, M., Thomas, H. and Tyrrell, T. (2009). Urban Green Spaces: A Study of Place Attachment and Environmental Attitudes in India, Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 22(9): 824-839
Chaudhry, P., Bagra, K. and Singh, B. (2011), International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 2(2):98-101
Chaudhry, P. and Tewari, V.P. (2011). Urban forestry in India: development and research scenario, Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 12(1)-80-93
Gerhold, H. D. (2005). The Origins of Urban Forestry, Letter to the Editor, Journal of Forestry, 103(7): 369-370
Gerhold, H. D. (2007). The Origins of Urban Forestry, Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast, Chapter 1:1-23, 10.1007/978-1-4020-4289-8_1
Knuth, L. (2006). Greening cities for improving urban livelihoods: Legal, policy and institutional aspects of urban and peri-urban forestry in West and Central Asia (with a case study of Armenia), FAO, FOWECA/TP/8, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/ah241e/ah241e00.pdf, last accessed on the 4th of April, 2012
Kohli, R. K., Singh, H. P. and Batish, D. R. (1998) An inventory of multipurpose Avenue trees of Urban Chandigarh, India Proceedings Integrated Tools for Natural Resources inventories in the 21st Century, 697-704
Konijnendijk, C. C. (2003). A decade of urban forestry in Europe, Forest Policy and Economics, 5:173–186
Konijnendijk, C., Ricard R.M., Kenney A. and Randrup T.B. (2006). Defining urban forestry – A Comparative Perspective of North America and Europe. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4:93-103
Kotwal, P.C. (2001). Tree Resources Outside Forests in India, Indian Institute of Forest Management, SFM Series 2/01: 1-29, http://www.iifm.ac.in/sfmindia/pdf/tof.pdf, last accessed on the 4th of April, 2012
Gowda, K., Sridhara, M .V. and Rajan, S. (2008),Planning and management of parks and green areas: The case of Bangalore metropolitan area, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 19(3): 270 – 282
Long, A. J. and Nair, P.K.R. (1999). Trees outside forests: agro-, community, and urban forestry, New Forests 17: 145–174
Nagendra, H. and Gopal, D. (2010) Street trees in Bangalore: Density, diversity, composition and distribution. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.12.005
Nagendra, H. and Gopal, D. (2011) Tree diversity, distribution, history and change in urban parks: studies in Bangalore, India. Urban Ecosystems 14(2): 211-223
Prajapati, S.K. and Tripathi, B.D. (2008). Anticipated Performance Index of some tree species considered for green belt development in and around an urban area: A case study of Varanasi city, India, Journal of Environmental Management, 88: 1343 – 1349
Prasad, V. K. and Badarinath, K.V.S. (2004). Changes in vegetation vigor and urban greenness in six different cities of India — analysis from coarse resolution remote sensing datasets, Journal of Environmental Systems, 30(3): 255-272
Singh, V.S., Pandey, D.N., and Chaudhry, P. (2010). Urban Forests And Open Green Spaces: Lessons For Jaipur, Rajasthan, India, RSPCB Occasional Paper No. 1/2010
Sudha, P. and Ravindranath, N.H. (2000). A study of Bangalore urban forest, Landscape and Urban Planning 47: 47-63
Sundaram A.M. (2011). Urban green-cover and the environmental performance of Chennai city, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 13(1):107-119
Ugle, P., Rao, S. and Ramachandra, T.V. (2010). Carbon Sequestration Potential of Urban Trees, Lake 2010: Wetlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change, http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/lake2010/Theme%201/prachi_u.pdf, last accessed on the 4th of April, 2012
[1] (Long and Nair 1999) used it as a broad encompassing term including urban forestry, agroforestry, community forestry, farm forestry and social forestry
sanchayanwrites.wordpress.com 