I was interviewed on the landscaping in relation to sustainable development last Tuesday. While landscaping can beautify a place, it does not necessary make it sustainable. Thereby, comparing landscaping and beautification to greenery and environmental protection is not exactly the same. For example, a golf course although having a lot of greenery might be deteriorating the surrounding environment and stream due to the extensive use of fertiliser. Similarly concreted floor is slowing down the run off in which a flash flood might happen.
Hence, the concept of sustainable landscaping is important and should be given due consideration for those who would like to beautify their compound and to preserve a good quality of living. The question is what do we mean sustainable landscaping? To me, as long as the planning and developing process of a landscaped area is done with the followings in mind: zero waste, zero carbon, minimum disturbance to the ecological system as well as user friendly. The landscaping should have optimised the resources and utilised the natural resources.
For example, harvesting rain water for purpose of watering the plants and used for fish pond; using recyclable building material for construction of gazebo and pergola or even the used tyre for flower pots; using the shape of trees for shelter; using solar lamp for lighting; laying inter-locking tiles for flooring instead of the cement floors; planting with functionality rather than only aesthetics value in mind and etc.
To me, the quote of "Being environmental friendly can be profitable" is perfect for sustainable landscaping. While aesthetic value and beautification can be preserved, the sustainable development can be applied. The owner can enjoy the scenery and at the same time feel good of being environmental friendly.
If everyone of us has thought about this in our daily life, then sustainable development is not that far from achieving, i believe.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Culture and Environment
I was asked about the conflict between culture and environment, if any during my discussion with the representatives from the Petaling Jaya Chinese Guild Organisations last Thursday on the possibility of jointly organising the coming Chinese New Year celebration. I mentioned about having an environmental friendly festive celebration in which programmes, refreshment served, preparation and others should have sustainability component. For example, minimisation of waste and activities or performances highlighting the message for environmental protection should be taken into consideration. Everyone agreed the concept of having an environmental friendly celebration but confessed the difficulty of implementing it. They were also worried about the possibility of scarifying either one along the preparation process.
One interesting point brought up was the compatibility between culture and environment. While it is noble for having both at the same time, at time conflict might occur and we have to find a win-win solution. The question is how to balance the two dimensions, namely protecting the environment and preserving the culture.
Fire cracker, for example is not only affecting the safety of people and buildings, also the environment will be deteriorating as paper was used and smoke was produced. People tend to continue lighting up the fire cracker as it was a tradition during ancient time to scarce away the wild animal and also to brighten the festive season. If virtual fire cracker with same effects can be created through technological innovation, then the question of getting rid of fire cracker might not have been brought up.
Another wasteful instance is the serving of packet drink for every individual visiting our house. As our customary warm hospitality, we used to serve drink to our friends straight away without asking in advance whether they are thirsty or not. As most of the friends have rushed through few visits in a day, they are more likely have taken few drinks before visiting us. It always ends up with the packet drink opened, but untouched. If we can either ask first or serve them with drink in glasses, then the good tradition which might resulted in wasteful gesture can be maintained with pride, to our mother Earth. Others like serving set meal instead of the buffet, e-invitation rather than the posting of greeting card.
A study revealed that people tend to throw away more rubbish during post festive season. This happened as many people tend to purchase a lot of food stuffs preparing for the festive celebration either in anticipation for more consumption or due to the attraction from sale's offer. However, the goods will normally unconsumed and end up in the rubbish bin. So, practicing a green procurement for celebrating the festive season should not be considered as a set back to the cultural tradition.
The common saying of "Being environmental friendly can be profitable" in a way is true provided that innovation, adaptation and tolerance is observed. To me, good value and culture must always be maintained and come first, but injecting environmental friendly components is also equally important.
One interesting point brought up was the compatibility between culture and environment. While it is noble for having both at the same time, at time conflict might occur and we have to find a win-win solution. The question is how to balance the two dimensions, namely protecting the environment and preserving the culture.
Fire cracker, for example is not only affecting the safety of people and buildings, also the environment will be deteriorating as paper was used and smoke was produced. People tend to continue lighting up the fire cracker as it was a tradition during ancient time to scarce away the wild animal and also to brighten the festive season. If virtual fire cracker with same effects can be created through technological innovation, then the question of getting rid of fire cracker might not have been brought up.
Another wasteful instance is the serving of packet drink for every individual visiting our house. As our customary warm hospitality, we used to serve drink to our friends straight away without asking in advance whether they are thirsty or not. As most of the friends have rushed through few visits in a day, they are more likely have taken few drinks before visiting us. It always ends up with the packet drink opened, but untouched. If we can either ask first or serve them with drink in glasses, then the good tradition which might resulted in wasteful gesture can be maintained with pride, to our mother Earth. Others like serving set meal instead of the buffet, e-invitation rather than the posting of greeting card.
A study revealed that people tend to throw away more rubbish during post festive season. This happened as many people tend to purchase a lot of food stuffs preparing for the festive celebration either in anticipation for more consumption or due to the attraction from sale's offer. However, the goods will normally unconsumed and end up in the rubbish bin. So, practicing a green procurement for celebrating the festive season should not be considered as a set back to the cultural tradition.
The common saying of "Being environmental friendly can be profitable" in a way is true provided that innovation, adaptation and tolerance is observed. To me, good value and culture must always be maintained and come first, but injecting environmental friendly components is also equally important.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Participatory Planning (3)
We are facing a dilemma in determining the boundary for public notification on a development project hearing. Thing is getting easy with the observance of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1976 (Act 172). The Act requires notification to adjacent land owners and those within the vicinity of not more than 20 meter diameter or those affected due to the Cul-De-sac design of the area. Nevertheless, MBPJ is allowing greater participation by inviting people from outside the required area to be consulted with. The catchment area becomes issue for contest.
While the residents want basically everyone to be consulted, the project proponents want only those who might be directly affected to be involved. The argument is unfinished as both are fighting for greater benefits. The loser is always MBPJ. While guiding the interests of the public is the main responsibility of MBPJ, the always "NO" from the residents is holding back the development. The residents has always argued on perceived traffic congestion and noise pollution as reasons for objection. No one has spoken about converting to public transportation to reduce the cars on the road, that's mean everyone to commute with public transport. Blanket objection without allowing development with merit is not the way forward, certainly. So, the question is how to draw the line for "sustainable" development projects? It certainly requires the wisdom and strategic thinking and involvement of every stakeholders.
Coming back to the public participation and the question of how many "public" is sufficient for us to call it a good participation process. Certainly, giving opportunities to everyone who are interested is good, but requiring a huge cost is certainly not the good choice. Spending lesser with greater consultation process should be given a thought. Nowadays advertising through media is not a cheap option. Similarly, posting the notice is not cheap as well. Perhaps representative system in reaching the potential parties should be considered and constant feedback on development at the particular area via regular communication channel is another option. People, sometime might have been misleading in objecting some development as no information, or at time sufficient information was provided for them to make an informed decision. Some time a prior notice with explanation will do.
Participatory planning by engaging as many people as possible is wonderful, but might not be efficient due to cost and time constraints. Hence, innovation in public participation forum is required, and has to do it fast and precise.
While the residents want basically everyone to be consulted, the project proponents want only those who might be directly affected to be involved. The argument is unfinished as both are fighting for greater benefits. The loser is always MBPJ. While guiding the interests of the public is the main responsibility of MBPJ, the always "NO" from the residents is holding back the development. The residents has always argued on perceived traffic congestion and noise pollution as reasons for objection. No one has spoken about converting to public transportation to reduce the cars on the road, that's mean everyone to commute with public transport. Blanket objection without allowing development with merit is not the way forward, certainly. So, the question is how to draw the line for "sustainable" development projects? It certainly requires the wisdom and strategic thinking and involvement of every stakeholders.
Coming back to the public participation and the question of how many "public" is sufficient for us to call it a good participation process. Certainly, giving opportunities to everyone who are interested is good, but requiring a huge cost is certainly not the good choice. Spending lesser with greater consultation process should be given a thought. Nowadays advertising through media is not a cheap option. Similarly, posting the notice is not cheap as well. Perhaps representative system in reaching the potential parties should be considered and constant feedback on development at the particular area via regular communication channel is another option. People, sometime might have been misleading in objecting some development as no information, or at time sufficient information was provided for them to make an informed decision. Some time a prior notice with explanation will do.
Participatory planning by engaging as many people as possible is wonderful, but might not be efficient due to cost and time constraints. Hence, innovation in public participation forum is required, and has to do it fast and precise.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Participatory Planning (4)
In most of the consultation process, we always forget about the existence of third parties or other stakeholders. For example, in the recent dispute between the legitimate hawkers with the hawkers without license at the morning market of SS2. The hawkers objected to the appeal by hawkers without license to issue them the permit for trading there as they feared of competition and other consequences on traffic and cleanliness problems. The hawkers without license appealed for permit as they have been there more than 10 years and are contributing towards the prosperity of the market. They have also argued that they are law abiding citizens.
Both, however agreed that economic situation now is directly impacting their business. Both sides looked for support to further their argument. Nobody has actually consulted other stakeholders such as the residents, the shop owners and the market patrons over this dispute.
We have not asked the residents and shop owners, whom have their presence there days and nights to live with whatever odours, if any, and rats, if any, and disease, if any there. They are the groups there exposing their life, their living, their families and their health, and not the hawkers as hardly any of them are the local SS2 residents. Shop owners, while paying high rental have to compete with hawkers for car parking space, the customers and even the right to go in and out from the area. Logically, these groups should be consulted and by right their views are much more important, isn't it? They are our pay master as MBPJ is collecting tax from the residents and shop owners, thus our target for services provision.
Perhaps consulting these groups might provide us, the planners better insight and options. Perhaps their input will bring in wider perspective on an integrated urban development. Perhaps we can be wiser in making a choice after listening them out rather than trying to please the two parties who have their interest come first.
Both, however agreed that economic situation now is directly impacting their business. Both sides looked for support to further their argument. Nobody has actually consulted other stakeholders such as the residents, the shop owners and the market patrons over this dispute.
We have not asked the residents and shop owners, whom have their presence there days and nights to live with whatever odours, if any, and rats, if any, and disease, if any there. They are the groups there exposing their life, their living, their families and their health, and not the hawkers as hardly any of them are the local SS2 residents. Shop owners, while paying high rental have to compete with hawkers for car parking space, the customers and even the right to go in and out from the area. Logically, these groups should be consulted and by right their views are much more important, isn't it? They are our pay master as MBPJ is collecting tax from the residents and shop owners, thus our target for services provision.
Perhaps consulting these groups might provide us, the planners better insight and options. Perhaps their input will bring in wider perspective on an integrated urban development. Perhaps we can be wiser in making a choice after listening them out rather than trying to please the two parties who have their interest come first.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
International Day for Persons with Disabilities
Happy celebrating the International Day for Persons with Disabilities. The theme for 2008 is: "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Dignity and justice for all of us".
Every year today the 3rd of December is celebrated worldwide by the able and disabled community over the achievement made for creating an universal design and barrier free environment. Every year, however the same challenge of meeting the above is raised up again and again. We have not coming into a common ground and understanding.
Dignity and justice is a basic human right. Every individual has the right to be respected, the right to be served and the right to be treated equally as any other individual. Nobody anticipates to be given inferior treatment after all everyone is sharing the same responsibilities. Hence, treating persons with disabilities with dignity and justice is not something abnormal and beyond ordinary, it is a common act that supposed to be done by anybody.
LA21 PJ has tried to bridge the gap and interaction between both the divides of the society by organising various activities. Creating a common forum for them to meet and interact with each others, and in the process to create mutual understanding and respect. For example, building barrier free infrastructure and facilities, incorporating friends from disabled groups into the community groups, providing opportunity for business trading, encouraging community interaction and promoting their plights. It is a small, but critical step in breaking the social and physical barrier. I am glad to see that this year, Selayang and Subang Jaya are having programmes for celebrating the Day. We certainly need more local authorities to do so.
We have to try and try again until an inclusive society and a barrier free city is created. Once again, Wishing us all the best for celebrating this Day.
Every year today the 3rd of December is celebrated worldwide by the able and disabled community over the achievement made for creating an universal design and barrier free environment. Every year, however the same challenge of meeting the above is raised up again and again. We have not coming into a common ground and understanding.
Dignity and justice is a basic human right. Every individual has the right to be respected, the right to be served and the right to be treated equally as any other individual. Nobody anticipates to be given inferior treatment after all everyone is sharing the same responsibilities. Hence, treating persons with disabilities with dignity and justice is not something abnormal and beyond ordinary, it is a common act that supposed to be done by anybody.
LA21 PJ has tried to bridge the gap and interaction between both the divides of the society by organising various activities. Creating a common forum for them to meet and interact with each others, and in the process to create mutual understanding and respect. For example, building barrier free infrastructure and facilities, incorporating friends from disabled groups into the community groups, providing opportunity for business trading, encouraging community interaction and promoting their plights. It is a small, but critical step in breaking the social and physical barrier. I am glad to see that this year, Selayang and Subang Jaya are having programmes for celebrating the Day. We certainly need more local authorities to do so.
We have to try and try again until an inclusive society and a barrier free city is created. Once again, Wishing us all the best for celebrating this Day.
World Town Planning Celebration
Malaysian Institute of Planners celebrated this year's World Town Planning Day by organising the pledge and plant a tree campaign at Kelana Jaya last Saturday. With the assistance of MBPJ, A total of 135 trees were planted by the donors, fellow planners, guests and residents. YB Nik Nazmi, the State Assemblyman for Seri Setia and YB Gwo Bune Low, Parliamentarian for Kelana Jaya were amongst the invited guests to grace the occasion. Others included Yg Bhg Datin Wira Hamisah Ariffin, Deputy Director General for Federal Town and Country Planning Department and Mdm Sharipah Marhaini binti Syed Ali, Director for Planning Department, MBPJ. About 70 guests attended the function which was followed by the opening ceremony, environmental exhibition, demonstration on garbage enzyme making and showing of the movie entitled 11Th Hours. The programme end at 1.30pm.
The tree planting is an inaugural event for MIP to show the planners commitment towards greening the Earth, and hence help in reducing the carbon emission. Planners, as the agent for development has a big responsibility to ensure development projects is sustainable. While undoubtedly development will bring in adverse effect onto the environment, planners have to make sure the impacts are minimum and utilisation of the resources are optimised. MIP intends to continue with this effort. Perhaps to enlarge it covering other aspects of environmental planning is the way forwards.
At the same day, planning advisory service was held. The service is aimed at providing free consultation service to general public on the understanding about planning, enquiries about planning issues and challenges. This service is part of the Corporate Social Responsibility for MIP. It is an education process to build up the capacity of general public, and a pre-requisite if the concept of "planning with people and planning by the people" is to observe fully and sincerely. I wish to have this service be continued.
The tree planting is an inaugural event for MIP to show the planners commitment towards greening the Earth, and hence help in reducing the carbon emission. Planners, as the agent for development has a big responsibility to ensure development projects is sustainable. While undoubtedly development will bring in adverse effect onto the environment, planners have to make sure the impacts are minimum and utilisation of the resources are optimised. MIP intends to continue with this effort. Perhaps to enlarge it covering other aspects of environmental planning is the way forwards.
At the same day, planning advisory service was held. The service is aimed at providing free consultation service to general public on the understanding about planning, enquiries about planning issues and challenges. This service is part of the Corporate Social Responsibility for MIP. It is an education process to build up the capacity of general public, and a pre-requisite if the concept of "planning with people and planning by the people" is to observe fully and sincerely. I wish to have this service be continued.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Catch 22@PJ: Directional Sign vs Advertising Sign
I noticed the orientation of this board during my travel to Kota Damansara recently. The siting of advertising is favoured towards the incoming traffic, the reverse side showing the information of direction is not visible to the traffic. This indicates the priority is given to the advertising purpose. While some might argue that it is a conduct of securing advertisement or else the direction sign cannot be put up. The advertisers need funding to cross subsidy the cost of erecting the board. Well, it is true that mileage should be given to the sponsor and nobody will dispute it. However, it is wrong if the exercise does not serve the intended purpose, that is providing information to the motorists. No point of having an information oriented structure if it will not benefit the users. It is a practice of taking advantage, and thus a pure business venture. We are in the Catch 22 situation. While directional sign to provide information is required, the practice of prioritising advertising is unnecessary.
Contribution from private sector for infrastructure and public facilities is most welcome. While it is a corporate social responsibility, the good gesture will help in reducing the burden of MBPJ in providing the facilities. The contribution is definitely needed. Having said this, minimum guideline is required so that the provision is having more social objectives rather than the perception of having more economic returns. I believe the sponsors will not mind to contribute directly towards the good cause and with a minimum exposure if proper publicity has been given from the beginning. Perhaps, innovative marketing strategies from MBPJ is required. A total package encompassing the cost and benefit to stakeholders, namely the users and sponsors is important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
