Greening South East Asian Capital Cities

D.E. Aldous
Adjunct Associate Professor
School of Land, Crop and Food Sciences,
The University of Queensland, Lawes, 4345, Queensland, Australia
(dealdous@gmail.com)

Abstract
Green capital cities are increasingly promoting the concept of “clean and green” through a
range of economical, environmental, social and health benefits delivered through sustainable
development. Percent green open space in many SE Asian capital cities varies considerably
from those cities renowned for green open spaces, with some cities having 20 to 30 percent of
the total geographical area of the city under cover, or 15 to 25m2 of urban green open space
per capita, based on population pressure. Other researchers have demonstrated a case for up to
60 m2 per capita of green open space in an effort to retain environmental sustainability. To
ensure that the main challenges and opportunities of “clean and green” sustainable
development are achievable reliable information is required on the percent green open space,
an accurate classification of assets, and the development of innovative green open space
strategies and infrastructure. In recent years horticulturists, economists, ecologists, social and
health scientists, park planners and park managers have called for green open space to
become an important indicator in future indices on environmental performance, as well as
fostering of closer linkages among their disciplines so as to better understand the effects of
green open space on human survival, the environment, biodiversity, behaviour, and health and
well being of the community.

Introduction

Many “green” competitions and surveys have ranked the sustainability and liveability of the world’s
capital cities on safety, education, hygiene, health care, culture, sustainability, recreation, political-
economic stability, and public transportation, and to a lesser extent the environment. Other competitions,
such as the European Green City Index (Jarvis, 2010) and the Australian Conservation Foundation (2010),
have contributed to improving the carbon footprint of cities, and have placed more emphasis on
environmental performance and the quality of life issues. In other words “green” and “green open space”
have only been used in the broadest sense as an indicator in supporting the environmental sustainability or
liveability of a city but have failed to address the trueness of green in a biological sense and how urban
green space can and does impact on the economic, social, environmental and health benefits, and
ultimately the sustainability and liveability of a city.
In addition when considering green open space and environmental sustainability of the system it needs to
meet the conditions of the Brundtland Report (1987) which states that “sustainable development …. meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. For
such green open space to be sustainable, it is necessary to retain a balance between economic
development, a “clean and green” environment, the bearing capacity of the population, and the necessary
resources that maintain a natural and healthy environment (Chen, 1999).
_________
1
Paper presented at the 22nd IFPRA World Congress, 15-18 November, 2010, City Hall, Hong Kong
What is Green Open Space?
Green space has been defined as “any piece of land covered with vegetation and usually refers to parks,
golf courses, sports fields and other open land within the built-up area, whether publicly accessible or not”
(State University of New York, New Paltz, 2010). The Planning Institute of Australia (2009) has described
open space as “land that has been reserved for the purpose of formal and informal sport and recreation,
preservation of natural environments, provision of green space and/or urban storm water management”. In
almost all instances, the space referred to by the term open space is, in fact, green space. With green plant
systems providing considerable benefits in the greening of cities, perhaps a more appropriate term may be
that of green open space.

Benefits of Green Open Space to a City

The broad benefits of green open space provide for a “range of environmental and social services
including the conservation of ecological processes and cultural heritage values; sport and leisure functions,
enhancing the visual qualities and character of the city landscape; providing linear connections and
linkages including trails, pathways, creeks and beaches; and providing spaces for parks and playgrounds
and other public spaces where the community can exercise, play, learn and simply relax” (Hickie, pers.
comm. 2010). Green open space benefits have been categorized into environmental, social, economic and
health benefits.

• Environmental benefits
The main benefits of green open space can range from providing the “green lungs” to a city in releasing
oxygen, and improving air quality (Zhang, 1999), controlling temperature extremes (Finnigan et al. 1994),
improve the climate and reduce the “heat island effect” often associated with hot and humid summers
(Shashua-Bar et al. 2010), reduce noise pollution and the visual intrusion of traffic (Yang et al 2005), or
supply large amounts of fresh water to the city (Biao et al. 2010). In one Chinese study Biao et al. 2010)
found that Beijing’s forest ecosystems could intercept ~1.43 billion m3 of annual rainfall and 277.82
million m3 of soil water under ideal conditions, and supply 286.67 million m3 of fresh water, which has
been valued at US$0.63 billion ($S0.83 billion), and an economic benefit per hectare equal to US$688
($S935). In another Chinese study, Zhang (1999) found that the total amount of green space in Beijing not
only absorbed 10,739.6 billion KJ heat/year through the transpiration process, but could technically absorb
some 4,240,000 tonnes of CO2 /year, release 2,950,000 tonnes/year of 02, and remove 30,516.56 tonnes of
dust particles/year.

Green open spaces have also been involved in controlling soil erosion, filtering pollutants and other
particulate matter, as well as reducing wind speed impacts, stabilizing dust and reducing glare, reducing
sound and visual pollution, and providing security from calamities such as fire and earthquake as well as
sequest carbon. Both Brack (2002), Banks and Brack (2003) and Moore (2009) have demonstrated the
economic value of carbon sequestration on 400,000 trees in Canberra to be worth $AUD27 million or
$AUD27 million on 100,000 large mature trees in Melbourne respectively. Similarly Qian and Follett
(2002) estimated that turf grass areas can also sequest carbon at average rates approaching 0.9 and 1 tonne
per hectare.

Other important environmental benefits of green open space include controlling the movement of sediment
and run-off water, reducing the losses associated with applied chemicals and nutrients, the contamination
of ground water, providing shade (Akbari, 2002) and the leaching of pesticides and fertilizers (Balogh and
Walker, 1992), reduce the risk of flooding and improve the interception and absorption of storm water.
Green open space also provides a habitat for mainly animal and bird species, as well as acting as “wildlife
corridors” to protect and conserve wildlife, indigenous and threatened animal and bird species (Wang et al,
2007).

• Social benefits
Green open space plays a role in providing places for social interaction and cohesion, such as the
development of an active lifestyle, safe play areas for children, closer friendships, and initiatives in
learning and care for the environment. Green open spaces involve engagement with the environment,
involvement with structured and unstructured sport activity, and involvement with national and
international events, all of which can contribute to a vibrant, populous and sustainable city.
Similarly green open space has shown that it can provide an environment of cognitive and social benefit
for children and a connection of place attachment with older adults. Green open space also contributes to
the reduction of crime and disorder, stress, aggressiveness and violence (Green Cities, Sustainable Cities
Conference, 2003). Green open space can also provide the intrinsic values of evoking memories, providing
pleasure and satisfaction. Wang (1999) and Hirano (1999) have found that a stroll about or rest in green
space can enrich the culture of a city, as well as provide spiritual health, creative self-expression and a
sense of community pride and cohesion.

• Economic benefits
Green open spaces can contribute to a region’s economic stability by attracting residents, businesses,
partnerships, and eco-tourism (Wang and Zhang, 1999) as well as generating economic captivity, reducing
costs for public infrastructure and programming, and supporting regional economic growth (DiNapoli,
2010). Economic benefits usually derived can include the receipts received (including those from tourist
attraction, direct revenue generation to local and government (leases, licenses, event hosting), employment
opportunities, as well as opportunities for businesses and tourism partnerships. Events, such landscape and
garden festivals and exhibitions, are well known to attract many visitors to a city.

Monitored economic benefits from indirect or less tangible benefits of green spaces involve the energy
savings made in terms air conditioning costs, as well as savings made in reducing building energy use and
cooling costs, water savings from electricity generation, pollution and hydrological amelioration, carbon
sequestration and the boosting of property values (Huang et al. 1987; McPherson, 1992, McPherson et al
2005; Moore, 2009; Bolitzer and Neutsil, 2000). Huang et al. (1987) estimated that 100 million trees could
provide an estimated saving of US$2000 million in energy costs and reduce annual energy usage by 30000
million kWh. The USA Forest Service (Pamphlet #R1-92-100) has found that trees maintained over a 50-
year lifecycle can generate $US31,250 worth of 02, provide $US62,000 worth of air pollution control,
recycle $US37,500 worth of H20, and control $US31,250 worth of soil erosion.

The total annual recreational (use) value of the Asian City of Chandigarh city’s parks/gardens, boulevards,
green avenues, reserve forests, wild life sanctuary and other landscape features, was valued in the order of
Rs. 120.00 million (on 2002-2003 prices) ($AUD279.0 million), Rs. 27.50 million ($AUD 64.0 million)
from the view point of residents, plus Rs. 92.40 million ($AUD214.0 million) from the point of view of
tourists (Chaudhry, 2008). In Australia’s carbon market there are also possibilities for local government
revenue using the carbon sequesting capacity of urban green space. South Australia's nation-leading 'green
village' at Lochiel Park (2010) in South Australia is set to become Australia's first proven carbon neutral
housing development.). Researchers have also demonstrated an economic link between the high cost of
health and the potential use of green space in reducing preventative health costs (McKenna, 2002; Maller
et al. 2006; Townsend and Weerasuriya, 2010). Bird (2002) showed that a daily paced walk in natural
green space can potentially save an estimated $EUR11.34 billion that comes about from obesity and
physical inactivity and any indirect health costs from diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and absenteeism. In
a recently released Australian National Workforce Report, cited by (Taylor, 2006), 62 percent of
Australian workers were found to be obese or overweight, with the employee’s health strongly linked to
loss of work productivity. Similarly health care savings as high as $AUD175 million per year have been
reported by walking pet animals (Friedmann and Thomas, 1995; Bauman et al. 2001).

• Health benefits

In 2005, Pretty and co-workers, demonstrated the positive contribution that green space can have on the
health of people in the form of “green exercise” on three levels - one of viewing nature through a window,
two of being in the presence of a nearby natural event, such as walking or cycling to work, and three, being
involved with a natural green space activity such as gardening. The proximity and accessibility of these
green open spaces in relation to place appears to affect the overall levels of physical activity/exercise.
Involvement at levels two and three have been shown to alleviate stress and reduce mental fatigue,
increase wellbeing and self-esteem, reduce anger and tenseness, promote well-being and recovery from
stress, and offer some degree of protection against the development of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease
(Pretty et al. 2007).

The recent Healthy Parks Healthy People International Congress (2010) successfully explored the
“connections between the health of our community and the health of our parks, open and green spaces, (as
well as) nurturing a truly sustainable society, (that) recognizes its dependence upon and place within, the
natural environment”. Such green space activities are known to improve individual and community health
in the form of reductions in morbidity by 30-50 percent, reduce the risk of heart attack (Hakim, 1999) and
diabetes by 50 percent. Still more recently Professor Richard Ryan and co-workers, from the University of
Rochester (2010) stated that “nature is fuel for the soul” and even without doing any physical activity,
people can become more energized in the open air because of the bond between the human body and the
natural world. Children with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) have also been reported as becoming
“more manageable” after green space activities (Taylor et al. 2001). Among other researchers, Maller et al.
(2006) found that patients working in green space experienced better health, visited their general
practitioner less, took fewer prescription drugs, felt safer in their community, experienced less pain and
discomfort, when compared with their control with Hideki et al. (2006) showing the health enhancement
and relaxation effects of activities such as farming or basking in the woods.

Objective

The objective of the research was to document national and international information on green open space
in SE Asia, and discuss the challenges associated with determining the percentage of green open space,
classifying green open space assets, and other green infrastructure and planning issues.

Methods and Materials

A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the body of research available on this area, using
on-line searches, reports, journals and e-mail interviews. Documents directly relating to this area have
been included as references and websites sources in the reference section.

Results and Discussion

• Green Open Space and Green Cities

Green open space can be said to have both an urban and rural dimension in regard to assets. Urban green
space assets could include botanic gardens, urban forests, golf courses, racecourse, lawn cemeteries,
wineries and orchards, re-vegetation and restoration projects, nurseries and garden centres, urban trails,
resorts, residential gardens and nature strips (Barnett et al. 2005; Aldous, 2008) with others including
private backyards, gardens and balconies, cemeteries, street verges and medians, school grounds, rooftop
parks, urban domestic gardens, and storm water channels (Harnik, 2009; Barnett et al. 2005; Pincet and
Gearin, 2005; Singh et al. 2010). Similarly rural green open space assets could include the national, metro
and shire parks and reserves, arboretums, forestry, wilderness and conservation areas, and in subtropical
areas have been described as “wild lands, protected areas, forest plantations, cropland and rural
settlements” (Cereno, 2009). It makes imminent sense to call a capital city green when it has sufficient
green open space to account for its own environmental sustainability.

• Percentage Green Open Space in SE Asia

Both Singh et al. (2010) and the Report on the Status of Urban Forestry in the Asia-Pacific Region (1998)
reported on the percentage of green open space, as urban trees and forest, as well as the m2/per capita, for a
number of countries in the Asia Pacific region (Table 1). Singh et al. (2010) noted that cities renowned for
their green open spaces have 20 to 30 percent of the total geographical area of the city under cover, or
when the population of the city is taken into account, some 15 to 25m2 of urban green open space per
capita. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (1992) earlier provided a figure of
9 m2 as the minimum amount of green open space per city dweller. The Chinese researcher Xie (1999)
demonstrated a case for up to 60 m2 per capita of green space on sustainable development grounds.

Table 1. Comparison of percent green space of total city and m2/per capita (year) for capital cities in SE
Asia*
Country/City Green space m2/per capita Comments (Reference)
% of total city (year)
Daytime population is 400,000 and residential 40,000
Australia
only); Figure refers to parkland, garden and recreational
Melbourne (residents) 17.80% 163.3 m2 (97) reserves (Stokie, 98).
**Estimated crown cover of about 24 million m2
Melbourne (day-time pop.) 17.80% 16.3 m2 (97) amounting to 80 m2/inhabitant (Brack, 2002).

China Public parks and other green space (Li, 1997) increase
to 40 percent by year 2000 (or 8 m2/inhabitant (Shan,
Average 23.8% 5.7m2 (96) 1994)

Beijing 28 (1994) 6.83 m2 (Jim, 1998)

Hong Kong 39.2%(97) 66.0 m2 (Jim, 1998; Chan, 1988)

Hong Kong excl. country 1.5% (97) 2.5 m2 **On an average China’s cities have 32.54 percent
parks green cover. This varies greatly in Chinese cities like
Nanjing and Wuhan, i.e., 44.3 m2/person and 10.3
India, Unclear if it refers to public green space
(Andresen/Plexman, 1980)
Mean 0.003 (80s)
(Pye-Smith, 1996)
Bombay 0.12 m2
**India- Delhi - Average tree and forest cover is about
20 percent of geographical area and about 21 m2
/inhabitant (FSI 2009, as per population data, 2001).
**India – Chandigarh - Average tree and forest cover is
about 35.7 percent of geographical area, i.e., about 55
m2/inhabitant (Action Plan 2009-10, as per population
data, 2001).

Indonesia Parks/per capita (Ait, 1998)

Jakarta 0.22 m2((86)

Japan 5,000 ha (Yuji,1995) refers to parks, planned to

increase to 6 m2
Takatsuki City urban forests 84% (1990) 4.52 m2

Tokyo Metropolitan Area

Korea South Public green space (Park, 1997)

Seoul 25.2% 14.57 m2 (96)

Malaysia Public green space (Adnan, 1998)

Kuala Lumpur 5% 2.25 m2 (97)

New Zealand Public green space, mainly sport fields with border trees
(O'Reilly, 1998)
Christchurch 12.2% 0.018 m2 (97)

Singapore 17.8% 7.5 m2 (97) Public parks and open space, increase to 8 by year 2000
and finally to 18 ha/capita (Yuen, 1998)

Sri Lanka Green spaces 2.4% private (golf course etc.) and 2.0
percent public (municipal parks, etc.) (Wickramasinghe,
Colombo 4.4% 1998)

Thailand, Planned to increase to 4-5 m2 by the year 2000

(Charmniern, 1998)
Bangkok Metropolitan Area 1 m2 (97)

* Modified from the Status of Urban Forestry in the Asia-Pacific Region (1998). FAO Corporate
Document Repository. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x1577e/X1577E06.htm (Accessed
13th August 13, 2010).
** Modified from Singh, V.S., D.N.Pandey and P. Chaudhry (2010). Urban Forests and Open Green
Spaces: Lessons for Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Occasional Paper
20, 2010).

Much of the information in Table 1 is now dated. For example the percent green space of Melbourne,
Australia is now 40 percent with green open space per capita ranging from 5.6 to 69.1 m2 depending on the
residential or daytime population. Similarly Singapore’s accounted for some 17.8 percent green open
space or 7.5m2 per capita in 1997, but today it is at 46.5 percent green open space, despite a population 4.6
million people (Conserving our Diversity, 2009).

In a recent study carried out on the green open space on Australia’s capital cities, average green space as a
percent of the total city was 46.13 percent (Aldous, 2010a, b) whereas when it came to the number of m2
per capita green open space, the median values of 79 and 64.7 m2 per capita are more useful as they avoid
the impact of extreme values on the mean and are influenced by the differences between the residential
and day-time populations (Table 2).
There would be significant value in generating a research effort to re-assess the percentage of common
green open space, as well as determine the m2 per capita across the many countries that make up SE Asia.

Table 2. Mean, median and standard deviation of percent green space and m2 per capita of open green
space per capita (year) for Australian capital cities (after Aldous, 2010a, b).

Character Mean Median Standard Deviation

(%) (m2 per capita)
Green space percent of
total city 46.13 46 3.13

Residential m2 per
capita green open space 383.38 79 791.13

Day-time m2 per capita

green open space 195.87 64.7 275.66

When comparing SE Asian research to recent European research, Fuller and Gaston (2009) concluded that
green open space across 31 European countries, varied from 1.9 to 46.0 percent with cities in northern
Europe tending to have greater proportions of green space compared with cities in the south. Konijnendijk
(2003) suggested an 18.5 percent cover within the municipal limits of 26 large European cities or ~104
m2/inhabitant.

Challenges and Opportunities to Greening SE Asian Capital Cities

• Determining Percent Green Open Space for Environmental Sustainability

Although Australia’s capital cities rank quite highly in terms of green open space and m2 per capita of
green open space, when compared to their Asian and European counterparts, proven relationships between
the amount of green open space and the science associated with environmental sustainability is still in its
infancy. Chinese researcher Xie (1999) has shown an important planning relationship between green open
space and environmental sustainability for the city of Nanjing, PR of China (population 5 million, 2006).
The use of biological measurements such as the respiratory differences between urban green open and
correlations between the amount of urban green coverage to improve atmospheric quality, and reduce the
urban hot island phenomena, he concluded that upwards of 60m2 per capita of urban green area was
required for optimum residential development and environmental sustainability. This ranged from ~40 m2
per capita of forest or upwards of 60 m2 per capita of turf grass to maintain the normal proportion of
carbon dioxide and oxygen in the air, ~10 m2 per capita of forest and 40 m2 per capita of turf grass to
purify the three major pollutants in the air, and ~50 m2 per capita of urban green cover to eliminate the
heat island phenomena and save on energy. The relationship between public green spaces and the need to
provide rest and recreation accounts for ~10 m2 per capita of urban green space or 10 percent of the total
number of urban inhabitants in the City of Nanjing. Similarly Zhang (1999) showed that ~2,000 km2 of
green open space in Beijing could absorb 4,240,000 tonnes/year of CO2, release 2,950,000 tonnes/year of
O2, provide 439 million tonnes/year of water, absorb 10,739.6 KJ/year of heat through transpiration, and
remove 30,516.56 tonnes of dust. Given these figures the researcher concluded that 1 hectare of green
open space could absorb 1,767 tonnes/day of CO2, and releases 1,230 tonnes/day of O2 in gaseous
exchange, but the question remains whether there is sufficient green open space to maintain environmental
sustainability for a population that now exceeds 22 million people. Research work into ascertaining the
amount of green open space to sustain environmental sustainability in urban, peri-urban and rural areas has
now become an important planning tool.

With environmental sustainability there is a need to maintain the continuity of green open space over time
not only maintaining the total amount and type at a given time but to ensure that long term planning is
maintained fir its development and continued functioning. Tools are available to evaluate these
environmental values and the areas of green open space, such as the use of geographical information
systems (GIS). Richardson et al. and co-workers (2010) have made use of the GIS distinguish between
usable and non-usable areas of the New Zealand landscape.

• Determining the Classification Status of Green Open Space

Research shows that there is a growing need, not only in determining the percent of green open space in
SE Asian capital cities, but also to accurately classify these green open space assets. With the recent
Australian study the classification of green open space has varied in type and structure between the states
and territories and even between municipalities. For example Brisbane City Council’s green open space
has been classified into parks, sporting fields, bush land, creeks, the Brisbane River, Moreton Bay, private
backyards and gardens, courtyards and balconies, attractive and safe streets, plazas and entrances to
shopping centres, community gardens, bikeways and paths, spaces around libraries and art galleries and
the links between these elements (Brisbane City Council 2007; 2009; 2011). On the other hand Singapore
has simply cited their green open space as parks and green areas, nature reserves as well as park
connectors. Byrne and Sipe (2010) have recently classified their urban green/open space by typologies
such as parks, plazas, urban trails/greenways and streets, although recognize cemeteries, rail reserves, and
roof-tops as other park typologies.

Recently the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CAB) space, released a new tool
that classifies public open space into civic spaces, parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural urban green
spaces, green corridors, outdoor sports facilities, provision for children and teenagers, allotments,
community gardens and community farms, cemeteries and church yards, amenity green space, and
accessible countryside assets. The Space Shaper system measures the quality of public open space before
the manager has to invest time and money in its improvement (Space Shaper toolkit, 2010). Such an
audited approach on existing green open space assets in SE Asian countries, combined with surveying the
needs of residents, could provide for improved park and open space assets in changing communities.

• Determining Green Strategies, Green Infrastructure, and Open Space Documentation

United Kingdom researcher Barbie (2004) defines “a green space strategy setting out an authority’s vision
for using its green open space and the goals it wants to achieve, plus the resources, methodology and times
needed to meet these goals”. Results showed that Australia’s capital city councils have yet to develop
green space strategies for their cities, although some have captured elements of green open space through a
range of open space documentation. Green strategies in many SE Asian countries are emerging but need to
be described in more detail.

The concept of green infrastructure (GI) may be new for many SE Asian countries particularly into capital
cities and local government. GI highlights the importance of the natural environment in decisions relating
to land use planning. GI recognizes all landscape types (including water resources), whether they are
natural, managed or manmade, large or small, urban or rural provided they ensure satisfactory
environmental, social and economic services. The concept provides an emphasis on the "life support"
functions provided by a network of natural ecosystems. In a recent Irish study the services provided by GI
include habitat protection and regeneration of biodiversity, water management that includes drainage and
flood attenuation, recreation and visual amenity, sustainable mobility (walking and cycling), production-
food, timber, fibre and fuel (and related services such has soil formation and fertility, pollination, etc.) and
regulation of micro-climates and climate change adaptation (Butler, 2010), all important green issues in
SE Asia. The concept has significant potential and benefit to contribute to the sustainable development of
open green space in many SE Asian countries either by imbedding or attaching a separate green space
strategy, into any new open space documentation.

Conclusions

• There is emerging evidence that green cities need should aim to have up to 60 m2 of urban green
open space per capita to encourage environmental sustainability. Based on future population
pressures, SE Asian capital cities need to increase both their percent green open space and m2 of
urban green open space per capita to achieve environmental sustainability.

• That there continues to be a lack of reliable data on the determinants of green open space, how
much green open space is available, and whether there has been an increase or decrease in green
open space in these SE Asian cities.

• That a model be prepared to audit SE Asian green open space, to accurately classify the assets, and
develop common green open space strategies and infrastructure.

• That green open space becomes an important indicator when developing future indices on
environmental performance.

• That green open space managers retain closer linkages with economists, ecologists, planners, social
and health scientists, not only as a means of solidarity, but to be able to benchmark how the effects
of green space can impact on human survival, the environment, biodiversity, behaviour, health and
wellbeing of a community.

References

Action Plan. (2009-10). Greening Chandigarh, Forest Department. Chandigarh Administration,

Chandigarh.

AIT (Asian Institute for Technology). (1998). Internet resource:

http://www.hsd.ait.ac.th/cities/jakarta/envt.htm
Adnan Mohammad. (1998). Senior Research Officer, Urban Forestry Section, Forest Research Institute
Malaysia (FRIM), Malaysia, pers. communication.

Akbari, H. (2002). Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from power plants,
Environmental Pollution 116: 119-126.

Aldous, D.E. (2010a). Green Cities in Australia: Definition, benefits, infrastructure and application.
Proceedings of the PLA National Conference, 12 - 15 September, Glenelg, South Australia. 8pp. (in press).

Aldous, D.E. (2010b). Green Cities in Australia: adopting a national outlook to green open space planning.
Australasian Parks and Recreation. Summer Issue. 5pp. (in press).

Aldous, D.E. (2008). Horticultural tourism in Australia. Australasian Parks and Recreation. Autumn issue.
pp.8-12.

Andresen, J.W. and C.A. Plexman. (1980). Proceedings of a symposium on urban forest management
within the Commonwealth of nations, Agenda Subhead 5. Trees in rural and urban development. Eleventh
Commonwealth Forestry Conference, Trinidad and Tabago, Trinidad.

The Planning Institute of Australia (2009). Design Standards for urban infrastructure. Urban open Space.
14.0-14.9 (http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/12566/ds14_urban_open_space.pdf
(Accessed July 21, 2010).

Australian Conservation Foundation. (2010). The most sustainable Australian city is Darwin.
http://www.acfonline.org.au/default.asp?section_id=360 (Accessed 15th June, 2010).

Balogh, J.C. and W.J. Walker. (Eds.). (1992). Golf Course Management and Construction: environmental
issues. 951pp, Lewis Publishers, Michigan, USA.

Barber, A. (2004). Green Space Strategies- a good practical guide. CAB Space. Published in 2004 by the
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. 44pp. Retrieved from
http://81.29.86.172/~nwdatk99/toolkit/docs/53-green-space-strategies-a-good-practice-guide.pdf
(Accessed May, 2010).

Bartlett, S. (2005). Urban Children and the Physical Environment. Retrieved from
http://www.araburban.org/childcity/Papers/English/Sheridan%20Barlett.pdf (Accessed September 3rd,
2010).

Banks, J.G. and C.L. Brack. (2003). Canberra’s urban forest: Evolution and planning for future landscapes.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1: 151-160.
Biao, Z., L. Wenhua, X. Gaodi and X. Yu. (2010). Water conservation of forest ecosystem in Beijing and
its value. Ecological Economics: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.1009.1004.
Bird, W. (2002). Green space and our health. Paper to London Green Space Conference, Countryside
Agency.
Bolitzer, B and N.R. Neutsil. (2000).The impact of open-spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon’,
Journal of Environmental Management, 59, pp. 185-193.
Brack, C. L. (2002). Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest. Environmental
Pollution 116(S1): 195-200.
Brisbane City Council, undated, 'Open Space Strategy', Brisbane City Council. Retrieved from
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE:416706992:pc=PC_2506. (18th August, 2010).
Brisbane City Council (2007). Urban Open Space Strategy, in, Draft City Shape, Implementation
Strategy, The local Growth Management Strategy for the City of Brisbane, Consolidated Planning Report,
26 April 2007, pp.32-34.
Brisbane City Council, 1994. 'Brisbane (2011). The Livable City for the Future. Environment and
Recreation, Brisbane City Council, Brisbane.
Brundtland Commission Report (1987). Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brundtland_Commission (Accessed September 3rd, 2010).
Burgess, J., Harrison, C. and M. Limb. (1988). People, Parks and the Urban Green: A Study of Popular
Meanings and Values for Open Spaces in the City. Urban Studies, 25, 455-473.
Butler, R. (2010). Green Infrastructure in Ireland. Ifpra World. June, pp.18-20.
Byrne, J. and N. Sipe. (2010). Green and open space planning for urban consideration – a review of the
literature and best practice. Griffith University, Paper 11, Issues paper 11, March, 72pp. Retrieved from
http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/199128/urp-ip11-byrne-sipe-2010.pdf (18th
August, 2010).
Cereno, R.P. (2009). Green Tourism potentials in the Country. UPLBRDE News Service.
Conserving our Diversity. (2009). Singapore’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. National
Biodiversity Centre, National Parks Board, Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1, Cluny Road, Singapore 259569.
21pp.
Chan, C. (1998). Information Officer, Overseas Public Relation Sub-Division, Government of Hong Kong,
Special administrative region, pers., communication.
Charmniern, P.V. (1998). Thai Environmental Institute, Bangkok. pers. communication.
Chaundhry, P. (2008). Role of urban greenery in attracting residents and tourists. Active Adventure: The
Nature Tourism. November, pp.35-36.
Chen, Z. (1999). Urban Landscape Gardening Greening and sustainable Development. In Proc. of
IFPRA-Asia/Pacific Congress, Hangzhou, China, September, pp. 22-26.
Chen, H., B. Jia and S.S.Y. Lau. (2008). Sustainable urban form for Chinese compact cities: Challenges of
a rapid urbanized economy. Habitat International. Volume 32, Issue 1, March, pp. 28-40.
Di Napoli, T.P. (2010). Economic Benefits of Open Space Preservation, March, New York. Retrieved
from http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/environmental/openspacepreserv10.pdf (Accessed October 23,
2010).
European Green City Index (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/features/urbanization_development/all/en/pdf/report_en.pdf (Accessed
May 29, 2010)
Finnigan, J., Raupach, M, and H. Cleugh. (1994). The impact of physical environment of the impact of
cities. In Proc. of National Greening Australia Conference, October 4-6, Western Australia, pp.23-37.

Friedmann, E., and S.A.Thomas. (1995). Pet ownership, social support and one-year survival after acute
myocardial infarction in the cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial (CAST), American Journal of Cardiology
76: 1213-1217.

FSI. 2009. State of Forest Report (2009). Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Dehradun.

Fuller, R. A. and K. J. Gaston. (2009). The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biology
Letters 5(3): 352- 355.

Green Cities, Sustainable Cities (2003). Joburg congress looks at green space, November 18 (2002).
Retrieved from http: www.ruaf.org/events/2002/11south_africa.html Accessed April 14 2010).
Hakim, A.A., Curb, D., and H. Petrovich (1999). Effects of walking on coronary heart disease in elderly
men: the Honolulu Heart Program. Circulation. 1999; 100:9-13.
Healthy Parks Healthy People International Congress. (2010). Retrieved from
(http://www.volunteeringvictoria.org.au/volunteering-community-hubs/whats-happening-near-you/316-
melbourne-healthy-parks-healthy-people-congress-11-16-apr-2010) (Accessed June 4, 2010).
Hickie, J. (2010). Personal communication. Hobart City Council, Tasmania.
Hideki, I., K. S. Kaoru, and K. Inose. (2006). The Significance of Green-space in City-suburbs and its Use
in the Context of Welfare, Witnessed in the Foundation and Development of the "Minuma-Tanbo Welfare-
Farm", Saitama Prefecture. Randosukepu Kenkyu, Vol. 69; No.5; pp. 767-772.

Hirano, K. (1999). Creation of urbanized society emphasizing the environmental and the role of open
space. In Proc. of IFPRA-Asia/Pacific Congress, Hangzhou, China, September, pp. 12-16.

Huang, J. Akbari, H., Taha, H. and A. Rosenfeld. (1987). The potential for vegetation in reducing summer
cooling loads in residential buildings. J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol., 26.

Jarvis, J. (2010). A measure of Green for European Cities. Retrieved from (http://www.theeconaut.com/a-
measure-of-green-for-european-cities/) Accessed May 29, 2010.

Jim, C.Y and Y.C.Wendy (2009). Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities.
26(4):187-194.

Jim, C.Y. (1998). Diversity of amenity-tree species in Hong Kong. Quarterly Journal of Forestry
85(4):233-243.

Konijnendijk, C.C. (2003). A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics. 5: 175-
186.
Li, W. (1997). Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing, pers. communication.
Lochiel Park – a nation leading green village. (2010). Retrieved
(http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/cityfutures/SOAC/lochielpark.pdf).(Accessed September 2, 2010)
Lynch, K. (1990). City Sense and City Design: Writings and Projects of Kevin Lynch (Tridib Banerjee
and Michael Southworth, editors), MIT Press, Cambridge MA and London 1990; ISBN 0262121433
Maller, C., M. Townsend, A. Pryor, P. Brown and L. St Leger. (2006). Healthy nature healthy people:
‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion
International, 2006 21(1):45-54.
McKenna, T. (2003). Parks-for plants or for people? – How Newcastle develops its park policy with a
health aspect. In Proc. of the IFPRA Europe Conference, Stavanger, June 16-19, Norway, 8pp.

McPherson, E.G. (1992). Accounting for benefits and costs of urban green space. Landscape and Urban
planning. 22:41-51.

McPherson, G., J. R. Simpson, P. J. Peper, S. E. Maco and Q. Xiao (2005). Municipal forest benefits and
costs in five US cities. Journal of Forestry 103(8): 411-416.

Moore, G. M. (2009). People, trees, landscapes and climate change, in Sykes H (Ed.) Climate change on
for young and old, future leaders, Melbourne, p. 132-149.

O'Reilly, R. (1998). New Zealand, Schools of Forestry, Christchurch, New Zealand, pers. Communication.
Park Jae Wook (1997). President, Forestry Research Institute, South Korea, pers. communication.
Park Jae Wook (1997). President, Forestry Research Institute, South Korea, pers. communication.
Pincet, S. and E. Gearin. (2005). The reinvention of public green space, Urban Geography 26, pp. 365-84.
Pretty, J., Peacock. J., Sellens, M., and M. Griffin. (2005). The mental and physical health outcomes of
green exercise. Int. J. Environ Health Res. 2005 Oct; 15(5):319-37.
Pretty J., Peacock J., Hine R., Sellens M., South N., and M. Griffin. (2007). Green exercise in the UK
countryside: effects on health and psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 50(2), 211-231.
Pye-Smith, C.H. (1996). Building green islands in Bombay. People & the Planet 1996, Volume 8.4,
November 1996 (http://www.ourplanet.com/txtversn/84/smit.html).
Qian, Y. and R.F. Follett. (2002). Assessing Soil Carbon Sequestration in Turf grass Systems Using Long-
Term Soil Testing Data. Agron. J. 94 (4) 930-935.
Report on the Status of Urban Forestry in the Asia-Pacific Region. (1998). FAO Corporate Document
Repository. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x1577e/X1577E06.htm (13th August 13,
2010).
Richardson, E. J. Pearce, R. Mitchell, P. Day and S. Kingham. (2010). The association between green
space and cause-specific mortality in urban New Zealand: an ecological analysis of green space utility.
BMC Public Health 2010, 10:240
Ryan, R.M., N. Weinstein, J. Bernstein, K. Warren Brown, L. Mistretta and M. Gagné. (2010). Vitalizing
effects of being outdoors and in nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 30, Issue 2:159-168
Shan, Z. (1994). Senior Deputy Director, Capital Afforestation Committee, Beijing, China. pers.
communication.
Singh, V.S., D.N.Pandey and P. Chaudhry. (2010). Urban Forests and Open Green Spaces: Lessons for
Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Occasional Paper No. 1/2010:1-23.
Space Shaper toolkit (2010). Retrieved from http://www.cabe.org.uk/public-space/spaceshaper) (Accessed
August 3, 2010).

State University of New York, New Paltz. (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.newpaltz.edu/green/definitions.html (Accessed April 14, 2010).

Stokie, T. (1998). Strategic Research Branch, City of Melbourne, pers. communication

Taylor, W. (2006). Healthy Workers Get the Job Done. H R & Recruitment. The Age Newspaper,
Saturday, June 10, page 8.

Townsend, M. and R. Weerasuriya. (2010). Beyond blue to green: The benefits of contact with nature for
mental health and well-being. Deakin University, April. www.beyondblue.org.au (Accessed July 21,
2010).

USDA Forest Service Pamphlet (##R1-92-100)

United Nations Environment Programme (1992). Health. Chapter 18 in The World Environment 1972-
1992: Two decades of challenge. (Ed.) M. K. Tolba, O. A. El-Kholy, E. El-Hinnawi, M. W. Holdgate, D. F.
McMichael, and R. E. Munn, pp.529-67. New York: Chapman & Hall.

Wang, X. (1999). Urban peripheral green space: type, quality and layout. In Proc. of IFPRA-Asia/Pacific
Congress, Hangzhou, China, September, pp. 300-305.

Wang, G., G. Jiang, Y. Zhou, Q. Liu, Y. Ji, S. Wang, S. Chen and H. Liu (2007). Biodiversity conservation
in a fast-growing metropolitan area in China: A case study of plant diversity in Beijing. Biodiversity and
Conservation 16(14): 4025-4038

Wang, X. and J. Zhang. (1999). Forest Park and Ecotourism. In Proc. of IFPRA-Asia/Pacific Congress,
Hangzhou, China, September, pp. 110-117.

Wickramasinghe, R.H. (1998). Institute for Tropical Environmental Studies, Colombo, Sri Lanka, pers.
communication.

Xie, Z. (1999). Nanjing’s Gardens Greening shall take the road of sustainable Development. In Proc. of
IFPRA-Asia/Pacific Congress, Hangzhou, China, September, pp. 98-102.
Yang, J., J. McBride, J. Zhou and Z. Sun. (2005). The urban forest in Beijing and its role in air pollution
reduction. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 3(2): 65-78.
Yuen K. Ch. (1998). National Parks Board, Singapore, pers. Communication.
Yuji, U. (1995). Planning for urban forests in Japan, IUFRO Finland. IUFRO S6.14-00 Urban Forestry
Theme: Urban Forestry, Part 1.
Zhang, X. (1999). Quantitative evaluation of environmental benefits of urban Greenland in Beijing City. In
Proc. of IFPRA-Asia/Pacific Congress, Hangzhou, China, September, pp. 315-323.