Blog List

Tuesday 24 January 2017

Urban Green Space and Urban Biodiversity: Kuala Lumpur, Malays

Author

Sadasivam Karuppannan, Zainul Mukrim Baharuddin, Alpana Sivam, Chris B. Daniels

Abstract


Urban green space plays an important role in enhancing the quality of environment especially for urban biodiversity. Declining biodiversity around the world has received much attention among academics, professionals and citizens. The United Nations has declared year 2010 as the ‘International Year of Biodiversity’. Urban biodiversity movement is important to ensure healthy city environments. Despite this ongoing movement, urban dwellers have little knowledge about conservation of biodiversity particularly wildlife. Moreover, biodiversity has received little attention from built environment practices (Brown & Grant, 2005; Niemelä, 1999).
In general, urban wildlife habitat is protected as reserved forest. Many species of wildlife are generally found in such reserved forests. In comparison, the scale of urban parks in Kuala Lumpur is massive, much larger than protected forests. This paper presents the situation of urban wildlife species and the quality of habitats in Kuala Lumpur. It is found that many factors contribute to the healthy conservation of urban wildlife such as quality and variety of habitats, ornamental versus native vegetation and ecological design. The findings highlight that common urban birds are dominant in urban green spaces regardless of the size of the green spaces. However, only larger urban green spaces help protect species. Finally, the study concludes that urban wildlife in Kuala Lumpur is rapidly declining and that there is a greater need for the community and stakeholders to promote programs and activities to preserve and enhance urban wildlife. Development of comprehensive acts, policies and guidelines are vital for urban wildlife protection.

Full Text:

PDF


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v7n1p1

Copyright (c)  

Journal of Sustainable Development   ISSN 1913-9063 (Print)   ISSN 1913-9071 (Online) Email: jsd@ccsenet.org
Copyright © Canadian Center of Science and Education
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'ccsenet.org' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.

For further details log on website :
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/32893

THE POTENTIAL OF URBAN FOREST PARK FOR SUSTAINABLE CITY

Author
Noralizawati Mohamed, Noriah Othman, Mohd Hisham Ariffin

Abstract

The potential of Urban Forest Park and publics' views are clearly pertinent in urban greening and sustainability, yet they are often ignored by certain countries. In line with this, the Town and Country Planning Department and National Landscape Department had taken steps by developing more urban parks and urban forest parks to enhance the quality and sustainability in urban environment. The study was conducted at FRIM
(Forest Research Institution of Malaysia) with 375 respondents participated in this study. It is found that the respondents' evaluation on environmental, social and physical contribution at study area is associated with great and intense values for city sustainability. Public opinion and reason to come to the study area should be taken into account by professionals since they are the users and responsible to ensure the
sustainability of urban forest for future generation. Even though the overall percentage of survey showed that public gave good expectation, however, the small percentage could be an eye opener as they assumed the existing setting will face big challenge to sustain in the future.

Keywords

urban forest; urban park; city sustainability; environmental evaluation

Full Text:

PDF

References

Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 129-138.
Coley, R., Kuo, F., & Sullivan, W. (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29, 468-494.
Conway, H. (1991). People's parks: The design and development of Victorian Parks in Britain. Cambridge University Press.
Grey, G.W and Deneke, F.J.(1989). Urban forestry. Second edition. John Wiley and Sons. New York, U.S.A.
Hammitt, W. E. (2002). Urban Forests and parks as privacy refuges. Journal of Arboriculture, 28, 19-26.
Hisham, M.A.(2008). Motives for participation into Continuing Professional Development Activities by Malaysian Licensed/ Registered Professionals in the Construction and Real Estate Industries. Unpublished research, Universiti Teknologi MARA.
Hull, R. B., & Stewart, W. P. (1995). The landscape encountered and experience while hiking. Environment and Behavior, 27, 404-426. http://www.frim.gov.my http://www.uncsd2012.org
Justice, C.L. (1986). The concept of the urban forest as applied to Kuala Lumpur. Journal of Arboriculture, 12, 178-181.
Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environmental Behavior, 5, 145-152.
Lo, A.Y.H., and Jim, C.Y (2010). Differential community effects on perception and use of urban greenspaces. Landuse policy, 6, 430-442
Matsuoka, R. H., and Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84, 7-19.
Noor Azlin, Y., and Sabri, N. (1997). Forest recreation environment: Visitors preferences and perceptions. FRIM, 1, 1-12.
Noor Azlin, Y and Ahmad Nazaruddin, M.R. (2003). Benefits of urban forest: FRIM Papers: Habitat Malaysia, 7, 80-87.
Noriah, O. (2004). A cross cultural comparison on preferences towards selected urban landscape planting compositions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi MARA.
Nor' A aini, O., and Kamarul Ain, K. (2007, November). Keeping the green in urban area: An approach towards sustainable development. Proceeding of the Seminar Kebangsaan Rupabandar Malaysia, 28 - 29 November 2007, Lumut, Perak.
Noralizawati, M. (2009). Public Preferences Towards Naturalistic and Designed Landscape Pattern. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi MARA. Noralizawati, M. (2011). Assesing the Visual Quality of Penang Botanical Garden. Unpublished research report, Universiti Teknologi MARA.
Oku, H., and Fukamachi, K. (2006). The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75, 34- 42.
Ozguner, H., and Kendle, A. D. (2007). Attitudes of landscape professionals towards naturalistic versus formal urban landscapes in the UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81,34-45.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Allen and Unwin.
Park, B.J. (2011). Relationship between psychological responses and physical environments in forest settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101, 117-145.
Schroeder, H. W. (1986). Estimating park tree densities to maximize landscape aesthetics. Journal of Environmental Management, 23, 325- 333.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Sreetheran, M., and Kamariah, D. (2007). Performance indicators to evaluate urban parks from the saftey and security perspective. Proceeding of the Seminar Kebangsaan Rupabandar Malaysia. 28- 29 November 2007, Lumut, Perak.
Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., & Aikoh, T. (2004). Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 403- 416.
Tsunetsugu, B. (2010). Shirinyoku: Taking in the Forest Atmosphere and Forest Bathing in Japan. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 151, 27-37.
Yang, B. E., & Brown, T. J. (1992). A cross- cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Journal of Environmental Behavior, 24(4), 471-507.
Yin, N.S and Siong, H.C. (2010). The relationship between urban population density and transportation fuel consumption in Malaysian cities. Journal of Planning Malaysia, 8, 45-66.

For further details log on website :
http://www.planningmalaysia.org/index.php/pmj/article/view/Article%2010-4

URBAN FOREST RESOURCES

* Credit: City of Ottawa
For further information log on website :
https://treecanada.ca/en/programs/urban-forests/resources/

URBAN FORESTS ARE PART OF CANADA'S FORESTS, TREE CANADA TELLS COUNCIL OF FOREST MINISTERS

Urban Forests: Review of Canada's Forest Strategy for 2008 and beyond A discussion paper

1. RESUMÉ

A strategy for Canada's forests must somehow address the reality that over 80% of Canada's population now lives in urban areas and that these "urban forests" play an important role in the environmental, social and economic future of our country. Aside from the benefits that these forests afford to Canadian society, they themselves offer a window into the "forestry world" on a larger scale. In spite of the fact that the term "urban forestry" was coined by a Canadian, Canada may very well be the only country in the western world that seeks to exclude urban forests from its overall forest strategy, in spite of recent trends including its addition into the National Forest Strategy (2003-2008).

In terms of the traditional "industrial forest" which forms the sole focus of this Strategy, there does not appear to be enough recognition that the crisis that the industry is in requires leadership and a deep repositioning to respond to the challenges of this crisis.

2. GENERAL COMMENTS

2.1 Close to Home: The Need to Recognize Canada's Urban Forests While Canada may indeed be a "Forest Nation" it is difficult to construe its population as a "Forest People". Indeed, with 80% of the population now living in cities and built up areas, Canadians may well be considered to be an "Urban Forest People". Regrettably though there is no mention of this urban forest in Canada's Forest Strategy. Urban forests, now recognized as the "lungs of cities" go far beyond making our communities places of beauty and adding economic value to our homes and downtowns. They are crucial to our health, physical and mental. Urban forests:
  • Reduce the "heat island effect" of hard surfaces in the city,
  • Combat air pollution by knocking particulate matter out of the air stream (452 tonnes in Toronto in 1998)
  • Reduce energy demand in buildings and houses by 15-25%
  • Regulate the hydrology of our cities and minimize floods and droughts,
  • Provide psychological benefits to Canadians. Studies done in the U.S. show that with all things equal, areas that are well treed show lower rates of domestic violence, graffiti and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) in children. Hospital patients that are able to look out on treed landscapers show a faster healing time. Canada's urban forests are of tremendous importance to the mental health and stability of its families and communities.
In 2006, the United States Forest Service through its UFORE model actively measured the ecological services provided by Oakville's urban forests as being worth approximately $2.4 million/year.
Also, for many Canadians, their forest experiences will not come from national or provincial parks, wildlife reserves or game preserves. It will most likely come from their backyard tree, their neighbourhood ravine and their community park. Indeed, what happens in cities and towns can impact our understanding of what happens to and emerges from "natural forests" as populations expand. Urban forests are also frequently vectors for invasive insects and diseases - incorporating them as part of the Canadian Forest Strategy only makes sense.
Finally, there has been a noticeable lack of support for urban forest programs, with the exception of the municipal level. Federal horticultural research, shelterbelt programs, Arbor Days, Green Streets Canada and other urban forest programs have been withdrawn with municipalities left to pay for them out of the municipal tax levy or through corporate donations. This contrasts greatly with the rest of the western world, such as the United States where Urban Forests are addressed at a senior organizational level and receive direct federal funding of $35 million/year.
2.2 Canada's Industrial Forest: A Need for Deep Repositioning As optimistic and constructive as the Canadian Forest Strategy may appear, there is a feeling that the Strategy may be looking at the situation with "rose-coloured glasses". The competitiveness of the forestry sector is the key issue in the implementation of the strategy and it is clear from many indicators that the Canadian forestry sector is not in a healthy, competitive situation.  This is evidenced in five main issues, namely:
  1. Forest plantations provide 30% of the world's wood consumption today, 50% in 2025 and 75% in 2050. Canada currently harvests less than 5% from plantations. The Strategy must point this out and seek to remedy it.
  2. Canada is still relying on one client country to sell a huge majority of its forest products: the USA. This must be addressed.
  3. Profitability in the Canadian forest sector is, unfortunately too closely related to a low exchange rate with the US dollar.
  4. Foreign investment by Canadian forest industry has been remarkably low thus providing no protection against a strong Canadian dollar (forest companies in Scandinavia are now producing over 30% of their production outside Scandinavia) and
  5. A recent World Bank study has shown that the world industrial forest sector is linked poorly with other commercial sectors (mining, energy etc.) - Canada is a very strong example of this
Furthermore, in spite of the fact that Canada has a great deal of third party certified forested lands, it is not clear whether there are clients who are willing to offset the costs of this certification. Similarly, reducing greenhouses gases within the industry is a great thing - however it will do nothing to increase the growth rate (sequestration rate) of our trees. Finally, not much is mentioned on the carbon side with regards to the Canadian Forest Strategy. Investments are being made by energy and other companies who are purchasing carbon credits. These credits could be invested in industrial and urban forests to change our wood supply profile from natural forest to plantation and to improve the urban forest.

3.0 SPECIFIC COMMENTS

How the Forest Strategy Can Improve Its Relevancy
Page 1 (Abstract): First, it is clear that the strategy will "be implemented by CCFM and its member jurisdictions."  That may be a constraint that CCFM faces, in that its members generally do not have urban forests within their immediate jurisdictions.  A mechanism must be found by which municipal governments could be made a part of the CCFM considerations. Second, as stated in, "Additional implementation mechanisms involving interested parties may be developed …"  we encourage the CCFM to find a suitable mechanism by which to include urban forests, perhaps in the same spirit in which CCFM has found a way to include private woodlots and First Nations forests in the Strategy.
Page 5 end first paragraph - suggest a re-word from "… worlds fresh water, and provide habitat for more than 140,000 species of plants, animals and microorganisms and enhance our urban environments.
Page 7 Second paragraph suggests that previous "strategies took a broad and all-encompassing approach" but that this new one will be "to achieve greater focus on national priorities."   This suggests that Urban Forests be identified as a 'national priority' - one that should be brought under the CCFM umbrella
Pages 7-8 outline the context for Sustainable Forest Management in Canada - it includes woodlot forests and Aboriginal concerns.  It would be appropriate to add a paragraph here to address the urban forest.  It is interesting that the urban forest itself links closely both to the Criteria and Indicators, most of which have a relationship to urban forests as well as to many of the Potential Issues Being Considered in Appendix A.  Urban Forests need not have a separate section, if that was a concern to CCFM, but it could be added as a component to the separate issues. 
Page 10 - the Vision statement is a good one that has been refined from our first one in 1992.  Descriptive text connected should make it clear that the Urban Forest is a part of "Canada's Forests".
Page 10 and 11 list issues.  Again, Urban Forests could be added as a separate issue or urban forest issues could be added to those in the list - or both.  We dealt with Aboriginal and private forests in a similar way from 1992 - it does not matter how in the longer term - just the get it onto the agenda in a recognizable format.
Page 11 - second paragraph under VII Goals - add developing a means by which agencies responsible for urban forests may be added to the table.
Page 12 - first paragraph under VIII - add urban forest agencies to the list of identified participants.
Page 17 - Issues - 2 Forest Health - add that Urban Forests play an important role in forest health - providing reservoirs of biologically diverse trees and habitats that can be drawn upon to benefit regional forests; they may also be affected by events in regional forests, such as fire and insects, so should be part of national strategies.
Page 18 - Social stability and resilience - this is more economically oriented, but urban forests also contribute greatly to quality of life and social stability and must be mentioned
Page 19 - Climate change - a natural fit here in many aspects - location where 80% of citizens can make direct contributions and have a direct influence.
Page 19 - Forest biodiversity - urban forests offer a reservoir of genetic diversity - located in places in which they may be given more intensive protection.  On the other hand, urban forests may be points of entry for foreign pests - so again, should be part of a national strategy.
Page 20 - International interests - It is always an impressive introduction to a country when one sees forests while landing at airports such as the black pines in Rome, the conifer forests in Frankfurt, hardwoods in Paris and Heathrow, plantations a Tokyo/Narita, eucalypts in Sydney and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence woodlots at Ottawa - these visual impressions are important - we owe it to ourselves to show our care for trees and forests - the forests start close to home.  In international assistance, we should emphasize the knowledge base in urban forestry that may be applied to community or village forestry in aid-receiving countries.
Page 21 - Forest-related information and knowledge - -again a good fit with the interpretive potential of urban forests, for school programs and adult education.
Page 23 - Institutional Change - note that private forests are again mentioned - we could add a reminder about urban forests and the institutional change we request to enable the urban forest to be considered with the Canadian Strategy.
Pages 24-25  CCFM Framework of C & I - we do not need a separate category for urban forests, but we should acknowledge that the breadth of the C&I also provide a framework for urban forests to use as a basis for assessing those aspect relevant to urban forests.

4.0 IN CONCLUSION - THE REASONS FOR INCLUSION OF CANADA'S URBAN FORESTS

Canada's urban forests have had a long and varied history including:
  • The establishment of the great city parks in the middle part of the 19th century. Including High Park (1873), Mont-Royal (1876) and Stanley Park (1886).
  • Plantings of street side trees throughout the early parts of the 20th century with urban forests receiving its greatest recognition as a result of the spread of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) in the 1960's and 1970's making Canadians realize the aesthetic (and other) importance of their urban forests
  • The coining of the term "urban forestry" in 1970 by the Canadian Erik Jorgensen
  • From 1972-1979 the program, Un forĂŞt pour les Hommes was created by the Canadian Forest Service in Ste. Foy, QC. resulting in the first international urban forest conference at Laval in 1979.
  • The birth of a number of urban forest community programs at the municipal, provincial and national levels including: The Coalition to Save the Elms (Winnipeg), Ontario Shade Tree Council (now Ontario Urban Forest Council), Shade Tree Laboratory (U of T), Manitoba Ministry of Natural Resources DED Program,  and Tree Canada
  • The explosion of employment of urban foresters, technicians, arborists and entomologists at the urban forest level in the 1980's-
  • Canadian Urban Forest Conferences from 1993 to present
  • The inclusion of urban forestry in the Ontario Professional Foresters Act (2000)
  • Formation of the CANUFNET urban forest list serve and the Canadian Urban Forest Network (2004)
  • Inclusion of Urban Forests in the National Forest Strategy 2003-2008
The timing for the inclusion of urban forests in this latest Discussion Paper could not be better. We urge you to give urban forests their rightful place in the forestry family as we look towards 2008 and beyond.
Michael R. Rosen, R.P.F. President, Tree Canada July 18, 2007
With the collaboration of: Dr. Peter Murphy, Community Adviser Tree Canada and past Dean, Faculty of Forestry, University of Alberta Jean-Louis KĂ©rouac, V-P Tecsult Inc. and Board Member Tree Canada Dorothy Dobbie, Publisher, Pegasus Publications, Chair Coalition to Save the Elms, Vice-Chair, Tree Canada Gerard Fournier, Community Adviser, Tree Canada and President, For Trees Co., Jack Radecki, Forester, Mt. Pleasant Cemeteries and Ontario Urban Forest Council Bohdan Kowalyk, Ontario Urban Forest Council Peter Dmytrasz, Ontario Urban Forest Council Pierre-Émile Rocray, Forester, City of MontrĂ©al John McNeil, Forester, City of Oakville Richard Ubbens, Forester, City of Toronto 

For further information log on website :
https://treecanada.ca/en/programs/urban-forests/resources/urban-forests-are-part-canadas-forests-tree-canada-tells-cou/

BENEFITS OF URBAN FORESTS


Urban forests provide a broad array of well-known environmental, economic, and social benefits to these Canadians. For example:
  • Sequestering of gaseous air pollutants and particulates.
  • Energy conservation through transpirational cooling, shade, and wind reduction
  • Storm-water attenuation.
  • Noise buffering
  • Provision of wildlife habitat
  • Increased property value
  • Improved aesthetics, and
  • Psychological well being
The economic value of these benefits is enormous. Based on a recent analysis in the City of Toronto, with a canopy cover of 21%, very close to the average for eastern North American cities residential areas have approximately one tree per person. Based on an average Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (1992) value of $700 per tree this would make an approximate replacement value of the urban forest at over $16 billion. Similarly, the replacement value of the municipally owned street trees would be in the order of $3 billion. The reader is cautioned that this value represents the replacement cost based on species, size, location and condition and does not reflect the monetary benefit to society.
Clearly, urban forests have a substantial monetary benefit to the municipalities, provincial and federal governments (storm water attenuation, air quality mitigation, tourism, health care costs, etc.), to residents (property value, energy conservation, etc.) and business (tree care companies, nursery industry, aesthetics of retail areas). Internationally, many cities are recognizing that their urban forests will play an important role in their competitiveness to attract business and industry.
The benefits listed above accrue not only to the owners of the trees and forest but also to the entire community. While the same can be said for the wildland forests of Canada, the connection in the urban forest is much more obvious and dramatic because the beneficiaries live within it. A recent trend has been to evaluate trees, shrubs and greenspace by applying economic models to what is increasingly known as "green infrastructure".

For further information log on website :
https://treecanada.ca/en/programs/urban-forests/benefits/

CANADIAN URBAN FOREST CONFERENCE




The Canadian Urban Forest Conference (CUFC) brings together leading experts from across the country and allows for dialogue between professionals and community groups on innovative strategies, policies, technologies, research, and best management practices. Alternating coast to coast every two years, the CUFC brings together dedicated individuals and groups to share their experiences and novel approaches to the stewardship of Canada’s urban forests. The CUFC is coordinated by the host city with guidance and support from Tree Canada.

For further information log on website :
https://treecanada.ca/en/programs/urban-forests/canadian-urban-forest-conference/

URBAN FORESTS

The urban forest is where we live, work, and play. It’s in our back yard, our front yard, and our parks. It’s by the river, by the office building, and on the street corner. The majority of Canadians live in the urban landscape, where the trees and shrubbery of our public spaces and private properties are, in day-to-day life, our deepest connection to nature.
So, whose job is it to nurture the living giants of our cities? More often than not, it’s the municipality’s responsibility. At the provincial and federal levels, few laws or regulations govern the urban forest, except in cases of specific problems or threats.
Many cities hire professional foresters, and establish advisory committees. Some work with agencies to manage public spaces, like the National Capital Commission in Ottawa, the Commission de la Capitale nationale in QuĂ©bec City, and the Wascana Centre Authority in Regina.
Municipalities often receive funding support for urban forest projects from non-government organizations and companies. That’s what we aim to do with our programs like TD Green Streets and Greening Canada's School Grounds.
As much as people around the world associate Canada to be a "Forest Nation" or "Forest People", in reality 78% of Canadians live in urban centres. For most Canadians, the forest they most closely associate with are the woodlot remnants, riparian borders and street trees that constitute the urban forest.

For further information log on website :
https://treecanada.ca/en/programs/urban-forests/

Community Outreach

Girls next to street tree
Members of the Pacific Rowing Club canvassed the Sunset neighborhood in June, 2012.
Our Community Outreach program provides property owners with information about how to get street trees and sidewalk gardens from FUF.  We spread the word that it’s easy and cheap to make their blocks greener — most of the costs are already covered by grants and donations!
Are you a people person?  Join our volunteer Community Outreach crew by filling out our Volunteer form.
When we find property owners who are well-connected in their neighborhoods, we enlist them as Neighborhood Organizers.  We train and equip these Neighborhood Organizers to use a variety of outreach channels to mobilize their neighbors to participate in the plantings.
Interested in becoming a Neighborhood Organizer? Contact Jasmine by phone at 415-268-0773 or by email using our Contact Us form.
For further information log on website :
http://www.fuf.net/programs-services/community-engagement-education/community-outreach/

Community Forester Training

Each year, Friends of the Urban Forest offers a series of classes taught by staff and premier guest speakers. Whether you are an experienced FUF volunteer, or are new to FUF’s programs, this is an opportunity to deepen your knowledge and experience with trees. Become a Community Forester, and become a leader in the FUF community!
A man wearing a sweatshirt that says Citizen Forester
A Citizen Forester (now called Community Forester) participates in a Tree Tour of the Duboce Triangle neighborhood, February 2011.

What is a Community Forester?

Simply put, Community Foresters are FUF’s elite “Tree Corps.” With their experience in the field, and premier training in many areas of San Francisco Urban Forestry, Community Foresters are leaders in the FUF volunteer community.

How do I become a Community Forester?

Sign up for our upcoming Community Forester training! Each year the training is taught by premier guest speakers and our own FUF staff members, and consists of Wednesday evening lectures, each followed by a Saturday morning field day.  The 2017 session is now open for enrollment with a start date in late January. Please take a look at the schedule for that training to get an idea of what you’ll experience if you sign up.

How much will it cost?

The cost of the entire training is $300.  FUF will waive this fee for any volunteer who commits to spending 20 hours volunteering in a leadership position with FUF — we want you to put your new skills to work!
A mature street tree in front of a restaurant
Friends of the Urban Forest planted this Red Flowering Gum (Corymbia ficifolia) in Hayes Valley in 1981, the year we began. It’s still thriving today. Photo by Lisa Guide.

How do I register?

Contact Esmeralda by phone at 415-268-0772 or by email with our contact form.

For further information log on website :
http://www.fuf.net/programs-services/community-engagement-education/community-forester-training/

Adopt-A-Planting

Will you “adopt” an upcoming FUF tree planting? 
Friends of the Urban Forest is looking for individuals and businesses to adopt street tree plantings in San Francisco.
At each planting, residents and volunteers come out to plant trees all over the neighborhood, followed by a potluck lunch. It’s one of San Francisco’s best community-building events.
Our upcoming planting schedule is:

1/26/17 — Tree Replacement Thursdays
1/28/17 — Tree Planting| Noe Valley
2/2/17 — Tree Replacement Thursdays
2/9/17 — Tree Replacement Thursdays
2/11/17 — Tree Planting| Bayview
2/16/17 — Tree Replacement Thursdays
2/23/17 — Tree Replacement Thursdays
2/25/17 — Tree Planting | Bernal Heights
3/2/17 — Tree Replacement Thursdays
(See the full list of upcoming plantings on our events calendar.)
Your critical “seed funding” will make those plantings happen!
FUF trees are gifts to the neighborhood that keep giving for decades….

Make a donation to Adopt-A-Planting

If you adopt a planting, you’ll be recognized in the following ways*….
Name/AmountAbout this level
Gingko

Ginkgo Level ($1,000)

  • Funds the purchase of 20 trees to be planted
  • You'll be recognized by the FUF Executive Director in the morning remarks
  • Receive a card recognizing you as a donor for the planting
  • Thanked in an ad in Treescapes, the FUF print newsletter
  • Shout-out mention in FUF e-newsletter and in FUF Social Media
  • 1-year FUF membership
Victorian Box

Victorian Box Level ($100)

  • Funds the purchase of 2 trees to be planted
  • You'll be recognized by the FUF Executive Director in the morning remarks
  • Receive a card recognizing you as a donor for the planting
  • Shout-out mention in FUF e-newsletter and in FUF Social Media
  • 1-year FUF membership
Cherry

Cherry Tree Level ($50)

  • Funds the purchase of 1 tree to be planted
  • You'll be recognized by the FUF Executive Director in the morning remarks
  • Receive a card recognizing you as a donor for the planting
  • 1-year FUF membership
*If you choose to give anonymously, we’ll exclude your name from the corresponding recognition
To paraphrase an ancient saying — the best time to adopt a tree planting was 20 years ago. The 2nd best time is today….
Green button
Questions? Call Jason at 415-268-0785 or email him using our contact form.

Does your company want to adopt a planting?


For further information log on website :
http://www.fuf.net/support-us/adopt/

Advantages and Disadvantages of Fasting for Runners

Author BY   ANDREA CESPEDES  Food is fuel, especially for serious runners who need a lot of energy. It may seem counterintuiti...