Green space sustainability in Thailand

A ‘green space’ perspective cuts across – yet respects – ecological, economic,social, political, cultural and spatialconsiderations that should underpinhealthy, diverse, local ecosystems indeveloping nations. Its application toThai conditions helps expose theinstitutional linkages needed forsustainable systems of organized growthand shared understandings. Despitesignificant institutional hurdles, Thailandhas strengthened its capacity for greenspace sustainability. Copyright © 2004John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERPEnvironment.

Received 31 July 2002Revised 8 January 2003Accepted 2 June 2003

INTRODUCTION

Developing countries generally havefailed to redress challenges associatedwith feeding growing populations

from diminishing land areas of decliningquality, the use of fragile ecosystems byresource-poor farmers, conversion of forests toagriculture, urbanization of agricultural lands,loss of water storage capacity and biodiversity(IUSS, 1999). This paper examines the nature ofthe Thai ‘green space’ framework in whichplanned and unplanned spaces – public andprivate, urban and natural – may be utilizedand maintained for a sustainable combinationof ecological, social (including urban, rural,health, heritage, aesthetic and recreationalaspects) and economic (including agricultural)goals. The green space focus is intended to illuminate an institutional framework for policies, laws and administration, based insystems of organized growth and sharedunderstandings that are concerned about sustaining life of all kinds in healthy, diverse,local ecosystems.

The 2000 Ministerial Declaration on Envi-ronment and Development in Asia and thePacific specifically acknowledged increasingenvironmental deterioration throughout aregion with highly vulnerable ecosystems,Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

GREEN SPACE SUSTAINABILITY IN THAILAND

Patricia Ryan* and Natarika Wayuparb

Macquarie University, Australia

Sustainable DevelopmentSust. Dev. 12, 223–237 (2004)Published online 4 October 2004 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/sd.235

* Correspondence to: Professor Patricia Ryan, Adjunct Professor,Graduate School of the Environment, Division of Environment and Life Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia 2109.Telephone: +61 2 9850 6295E-mail: [email protected]

extreme poverty and overloaded urban infrastructures. It highlighted a role for green areas in the sustainable management ofmegacities and intermediate cities. Furtherreform was considered imperative, notwith-standing initiatives after the 1995 Declarationto update environmental laws and policies;build capacity in supervisory environ-mental management institutions; strengthenenvironmental compliance and enforcementinstitutions; increase decision-making account-ability and transparency; formulate nationalconservation strategies and national Agenda21; declare new protected areas and river andwetland revival programs; protect coastal and marine environments and natural heritage sites and promote multi-stakeholderparticipation.

Modern Thai development is characterizedby economic growth and rapid urbanization,with associated social disparities, politicalunrest, massive natural resource depletion andmajor environmental problems. The 8th ThaiNational Economic and Social DevelopmentPlan (NESDP), 1997–2001, accordingly soughtsustainable development – emphasizingpoverty alleviation, quality of life and localparticipation. It identified resource conserva-tion and provision of public spaces for liveablecities as key issues (NESDB, 2002). Earlier, theUrbanization and Environment Program (TEI,2002) had promoted multi-disciplinary, multi-level and multi-party approaches to environ-mental planning and management, includingan urban Green Zone program. The 7thNESDP, 1991–1996, had emphasized sustain-ability of agricultural land and set aside a largearea for conservation and environmental protection (Thai Agenda 21, 1997). Importantreforms have flowed from such initiatives andsome aspects of environmental and socialdegradation have been pegged. Thai popula-tion projections, however, show increases of 50per cent by 2025 (ADB, 2001a), and environ-ment, land use or poverty/inequality indica-tors reveal no cause for complacency (ADB,2001b).

GREEN SPACE SUSTAINABILITY CONTEXT

‘Green space’

In this paper, ‘green space’ combines townplanning concepts of ‘open space’ with con-temporary ‘healthy city’ concepts and broadersustainability principles – to deal with a global‘perpetuation of disparities between andwithin nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger,ill health and illiteracy, and the continuingdeterioration of the ecosystems on which wedepend for our well-being’, so as to ‘lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved livingstandards for all, better protected and managedecosystems and a safer, more prosperousfuture’ (UN Agenda 21, 1992, preamble). Espe-cially important is the need ‘to recover a senseof the interconnectedness between communi-ties and the land’ (Reed, 1995).

This signifies an ambitious enterprise ofurban, rural and wild lands with production,consumption, development and restorationactivities, in ways that

• adapt to infinite variations in local circum-stances (including cultural values),

• ‘catalyse and co-ordinate a million acts ofindividual creativity which heal people andplace’,

• integrate multiple perspectives – includingsocial equity, conservation biology, urban-ism, regionalism, green building, commu-nity development, natural, social andcultural capital – and

• apply at many levels of scale – includingsites, buildings, businesses, towns, cities,watersheds and regions (Ecotrust, 2002).

That is, ‘real systems’ of spaces – not just left-over green areas unsuitable for investment –must be embedded within the sustainabilityframework. Connected units in local, regionaland national networks, which do not requireconstant human activity to survive (Szacki,1998), have an environmental role (largely cli-matic, hydrological and biological) and social

P. RYAN AND N. WAYUPARB

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 12, 223–237 (2004)

224

functions (recreational, aesthetic, educational,spiritual). Therefore, ‘green’ space is not syn-onymous with greenery, but includes human-made and other elements of landscape. It is not even confined to ‘land’. In the relativelyundeveloped province of Samut Songkram,‘water culture’ prevails, slowing the process ofboth industrialization and urbanization(Wayuparb, 2002).

Although some jurisdictions (Evans, 1999)have an unusually wide definition of ‘openspace’, Thai comprehensive plans have both‘open space’ and ‘green zones’. These includerural–agricultural conservation; rural–envi-ronmental conservation; recreation–environ-mental conservation; tourism–environmentalconservation; fishery–environmental conser-vation and conservation for forestry and Thaicultural heritage. The term ‘green space’ has noformal planning or management significance,but is used in the 1995 Urban Environment andGreen Spaces Management Plan for the Metro-politan Region (OEPP, 1995) to cover urbanparks and plantations of different kinds. Thereis also a large area formally designated for pro-tection as national parks, wildlife sanctuaries,non-hunting areas, watershed areas, protectedmangrove forests, forest parks, botanicalgardens and arboreta. The protected area hasbeen progressively reduced, however, andmostly consists of inadequately resourced‘paper parks’ (ADB, 2001a).

Therefore, the Thai approach falls far short ofa sustainability framework that systematicallymakes linkages between institutions, betweenpolicies and actions and between the urban andnon-urban. Lack of linkages is recognized inthe 9th NESDP, 2002–2006, where strategiesinclude sustainable rural and city develop-ment, environmental and natural resourcemanagement and good governance based on apeople-centric development vision.

Sustainable cities

Megacity sustainability concerns include population dynamics, resources, government,

infrastructure, mobility, planning, city struc-ture, waste management, social connectedness,individual/community participation, liveli-hood opportunities, heritage, safety, livingenvironment and health care delivery/promotion (ACIIC, 2001). In a global city, with its mix of government initiative andmarket-driven investment (Lee, 1996), allscales of governance are affected (Haughton,1999; Satterthwaite, 1999).

Green space initiatives are implicatedthrough ecological, social and economic conse-quences of urban vegetation loss or degrada-tion, adverse microclimatic impacts of the builtenvironment, impairment of species diversityand constraints on venues for recreation, aes-thetics, solace and involvement with nature(Puglisi and Fisher, 1998). Szacki (1998) thusstresses the need to reconcile needs of cityinhabitants with requirements of nature pro-tection, identify individual green space unitswithin mosaic systems containing differentdensity buildings, natural ecosystem remnantsand degraded industrial areas, prioritizebetween contradictory functions of urbangreen space and link natural and transformedplaces systematically across urban and ruralareas.

Bangkok has been identified as a megacitywith an ‘industrial production’ function – char-acterized by unsustainable processes in bothenvironmental and social spheres. Its pollu-tion-intensive industries are directed to outercity edges, where services and infrastructureare weak and activities harder to monitor. Inthese outer rings, the population mix of poorinhabitants and residents of new develop-ments increases social tensions. Bangkok chil-dren have the highest blood-lead levels in theworld; its Chao Phraya River cannot supportlife, with water-borne plagues accounting forsix per cent of annual deaths and untreatedliquid wastes impacting the coastal zoneecology; some 20 per cent of solid waste staysuncollected and hospital waste and toxic sub-stances are handled inadequately (Marcotullio,2001). It has over 1.2 million people in its slums



225

and, unlike the case in some Asian cities,poverty in Bangkok has not been significantlyreduced by increased national wealth. As of1999, its air pollution in terms of suspendedparticles was two and half times higher thanthat of Jakarta, ten times higher than that ofSingapore and nearly eight times higher thanthat of Tokyo (Choong, 1999, p. 46).

Green space regulatory measures have beenirrelevant on the fringes, just as they have beendeeper inside Bangkok. The Town andCountry Planning Act introduced zoning cate-gories in 1975, but the first general Bangkokplan was not established until 1992. There isstill no specific plan with strong land use con-trols. There is also no consideration of how tointegrate private garden space with publicgreen space, and greenbelt mechanisms havenot played any significant role. In non-Bangkok urban areas, there is no special regard for cultivation as a mainstay of bothbuilt-up and non-built-up areas.

Sustainable agriculture

Abundant natural resources have fuelled Thai-land’s impressive economic growth, renderingit the only net food exporter in Asia (ADB,2001a), but agricultural land per persondecreased from 2.5 rai in 1983 to 2.2 rai in 1993(TDRI, 2002). Economic pressures workedagainst the 7th NESDP, which promoted agri-cultural sustainability through land conserva-tion, planting methods, crop diversificationand chemical minimization. Since over half ofall jobs are provided by farming, fishing andforestry – which also provide livelihoods formost of the 9 million Thais below the povertyline – there is a strong need to link use of arableland with water, forests and wildlife (ADB,2001a).

The issue of whether farmers really benefitmuch from adopting conservation-mindedpractices and technologies, or whether societygains at the expense of farmers (Allas, 2001;IUSS, 1999), is increasingly being addressed byoffering (possibly inappropriate) subsidies or

compensation to farmers who adhere to landuse and management regulations. Complexi-ties of equitably sharing biological resourcesare exemplified by legislation such as the ThaiPlant Varieties Act 1999. As well as creatingintellectual property rights for formal breedersof ‘new’ plant varieties, this Act enables an eli-gible local community to register as the rightholder of a ‘local domestic plant’ and share inrevenue generated by the authorized exploita-tion of rights. It pays lip service, however, tobiodiversity. It does not seek to protect theenvironmental, social and cultural conditionsof biodiversity that support agricultural sustainability (Dutfield, 2000).

Ecological and other reserves

Stronger conservation of Thai parks and pro-tected areas is a policy prioritization area of theAsian Development Bank (ADB, 2001a). Thai-land reportedly has deteriorated, in a period ofjust 30 years, from being one of the richestareas on the planet, in terms of diversity andspecies abundance, to being virtually a faunaldesert (Dearden, 1995). Forestry cover alonedeclined from 70 per cent in 1936 to 53.3 percent in 1961 to 26 per cent in 1993. Poaching,illegal logging and agricultural encroachmentsgnaw at terrestrial parks, while illegal fishingand tourism development threaten to consumemarine and coastal parks. The Thai fishing fleetis among the ten largest in the world and over-exploitation of Thai fisheries, through trawlfisheries and conversion of fragile coastlandsto aquaculture, halved the area of mangroveforest between 1961 and 1993 (ADB, 2001a).

Having ratified the 1985 ASEAN agreementon the conservation of nature and naturalresources, Thailand is theoretically committedto maintaining essential life support systems,preserving genetic diversity, and ensuring sustainable utilization of harvested naturalresources. As a signatory to the 1997 JakartaDeclaration on Environment and Develop-ment, Thailand recognized the inter-relatedness between development and the



226

environment, ASEAN’s commitment to sus-tainable development and the importance ofenvironmental stewardship. Extensive Thailegislation (Tookey, 1999) includes the WildlifeConservation Act 1991, which implementedthe International Convention on Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora;the Wild Animal Reservation and ProtectionAct 1992, which created a National Committeeto approve wild animal conservation areas andformulate maintenance activities, and NationalParks and Forest Reserves legislation.

The National Forestry Policy (Royal ForestDepartment, 2002), however, only aims to keep40 per cent of the country as forests, consistingof 15 per cent as protection forests for natureconservation, recreation and environmentalquality protection and 25 per cent as produc-tion forest (including controversial eucalyptusreforestation plantations). Like most Thaigreen space, forests stay pressured by popula-tion increase, low incomes, rising agriculturalproductivity and crop prices, conversion ofnatural forests to commercial forests, physicalinfrastructure (such as roads, dams, resorts andaquaculture) and associated land speculation(Clark and Laohasiriwong, 1996; Tookey, 1999).

Thai conservation has in fact been a low priority with, at best, only weak co-ordinationbetween wildlife, parks, forestry, watershedsand the rapidly growing nature tourism indus-try (ADB, 2001a; TDRI, 2002). The ADB has,therefore, advocated regional park groupingsand buffer zones, as well as resolution of landtenure issues, strengthened local capacities andpublic participation. Formal conservation,however, is not always welcome at the locallevel, because it intrudes into local lifestylesand attracts opportunistic outsiders as settlersor businesses (Kongrut, 2001).

Village catchment

Besides agricultural areas, rural communitiesuse woodlands, forests and natural waterbodies as resources, and they may alsoproduce natural products (Morse et al., 2001).

Their land management techniques and prac-tices are not necessarily connected to carryingout ‘development’. As in cities, there arecomplex linkages between social and naturalresource bases. The term ‘village catchment’has thus been used to identify an ‘agro-ecosystem managed at the social scale of thevillage community and the ecological scale ofthe small catchment’ (Izac and Swift, 1994). Asimilar concept is ‘eco-specific participatorymanagement’, as described by Rahman (2000).

The 1988 Thai Business Initiative in RuralDevelopment (PDA, 2002) was designed forvillagers to acquire skills and resources neededfor launching and sustaining income generat-ing activities in their own communities. It alsosought to stem migration to urban areas,enable families to stay intact and protect ‘theheart of rural Thai culture and society’. The 8thNESDP later contained targets for reduction ofurban and rural poverty and acknowledgedthe participation of women and poor com-munities in problem solving. The national governance strategy promoted the ‘three Ds’ of decentralization, deconcentration anddevolution (ADB, 2001a).

The position is especially complex wherelocal communities are associated with forests(TDRI, 2002). Thai deforestation for intensivecrops – enabling the landless poor to acquireagricultural land – has been a controversialavenue for rural poverty alleviation (Reed,1992). Although its pace has levelled, defor-estation has destroyed herbs used in tradi-tional medicines, and many plantations wereon land forcibly taken from villagers. Defor-estation, like other economic development,largely benefits urban consumers (Wunder,2001). After the 1997 economic crisis, overallpoverty climbed back to 12.7 per cent, but theincome share of the mainly urban-basedhighest quintile also rose to 56.2 per cent.

The prevalence of rural poverty soundswarnings about romanticizing the sustainabil-ity role of village life and local leadership,where corruption is no stranger and has con-tributed to trade in land and endangered



227

species (Tookey, 1999). Paradoxically also,while rural communities may define povertydifferently to government officials (TDRI,2002), unguided local initiatives may weakencommunity autonomy and the cultural signif-icance of resource-dependent livelihoods (Wittayapak, 1999). Furthermore, Morse et al.(2001) caution about subjective evaluations ofvillage-based projects because of mixednatural resource base and social components;differences between perceptions internal andexternal to the village; the superficiality of link-ages; the likely reality that ‘the village’ consistsof smaller ‘family’ units and difficulties inchoosing what scale and density of changeamount to being ‘unsustainable’.

Influenced by the urban middle class andNGOs, Thailand has steadily absorbed villagesinto the state political sphere, so that TambonAdministrative Councils have become majorlocal management organizations. Villages, nevertheless, may have their own agendas of‘selective engagement’ (Rajchagool, 1999) andlocal intellectuals may become powerful actorsin defining new social structures (Horstmann,1999).

MEDIATORY LENSES

While they may conflict with formal statearrangements and market-led activities, localsustainability initiatives are important. ‘[S]omany of the problems and solutions beingaddressed by Agenda 21 have their roots inlocal activities’ and local authorities being‘closest to the people, . . . play a vital role ineducating, mobilizing and responding to thepublic to promote sustainable development’(UN Agenda 21, 1992, Chapter 28). Thisrequires community awareness, support andinvolvement; relevant administrative exper-tise; available resources and access to the leadgovernment agencies. It also means thatnational and regional strategies must not beperceived as ‘foreign’ to local places and institutions.

Sustainability literature conceptualizes threemain models for accommodating national andlocal Agenda 21 strategies:

• a central framework of principles and controls governs diverse, local, green spacesustainability choices within national constraints;

• local conditions determine local green spacesustainability objectives, priorities andapproaches, subject only to provision ofcentral funds and resources and co-ordination strategies aimed at national-leveleffectiveness and efficiency, or

• regional-level objectives and co-ordinationoperate within a central framework of principles, with limited local autonomy concerning implementation.

The different models all recognize the needfor fair, equitable and resource-efficient princi-ples, to support a social system in which basicneeds are satisfied, as much as possible, inways that do not depend on reducing long-term productivity and biodiversity. Catering,however, for both ecological and social diver-sity strains a simple view of the physical localeof green space and the level of appropriatesocial institutions for achieving sustainability.Nevertheless, some existing institutions – suchas land tenure and national identity – do facil-itate flows across all organizational levels.They obviate a need for strong national,regional and local demarcation.

Land tenure

Although land administration systems havetraditionally supported the operation of landmarkets, they play an increasingly importantrole in supporting economic development,environmental management and social stabil-ity. They are, however, often out-dated andinadequate to serve a more integrated landpolicy, which addresses sustainable develop-ment priorities, common property institutions,informal systems and indigenous cultures andtenures (Williamson, 2001). Williamson argues



228

that land policy reform drives legislative andinstitutional reforms, which focus on objectives– not land parcels, enabling complex arrange-ments of rights, restrictions and responsibili-ties to be recorded.

Poor land tenure systems in Thailand haveprovoked a chain or cycle of unsustainableconditions, in which unsustainable agricul-tural activities decrease land productivity andaffect economic facilities for sustainable man-agement practices, which, in turn, affect pro-ductivity and further degrade the land (Hirsch,1993; Tookey, 1999; TDRI, 2002). As millions ofpeople reside illegally in Thai national forests,parklands and protected watersheds, landtitling has been accelerated in order to demar-cate ownership (and stewardship) and preventspeculative wastage and land degradation(ADB, 2001a). Illegal urban tenure or shelter –notoriously marginal, precarious and unable tosupport basic needs – similarly affects humanhealth and socio-economic development.

National identity and buddhism

Cultural and natural capital contributes to sus-tainability, but opportunity costs associatedwith investing in their protection complicatechoices about which sites to protect (Lockwoodand Spennemann, 2000). Answers could lie in‘cultural landscapes’ at national, regional orlocal scales (Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997) – asphysical areas ‘with natural features and ele-ments modified by human activity resulting inpatterns of evidence layered in the landscape,which give a place its particular characterreflecting human relationship with and attach-ment to that landscape’ (Lennon and Mathews,1996). This perspective arguably enablesWestern paradigms of resource management to be combined with non-Western approachesto design a sustainable and equitable resourcemanagement system (Lal and Young, 2000).

Despite steady transformation of Thaiculture (watthanatham thai) in recent decades(TDRI, 2002), its major sites remain the court,temple and household. Latterly neglected

sources of Thai knowledge and tradition couldpossibly be incorporated into the sustainabilityagenda, assuming that Buddhism reinforcesThai culture, broad Buddhist principles paral-lel ecology and mutualistic relationships withforests will endure (Clark and Laohasiriwong,1996; Sponsel and Natadecha-Sponsel, 1995;Tookey, 1999). National identity is associatedwith the king and Buddhism, with around 95per cent of the population being formally Buddhist. The figure is higher in villages withpractising novices or monks. The 1997 consti-tution enshrines Buddhism and recognizesrights of indigenous communities to conservelocal traditions and participate in naturalresource management. Animism too – drawingon its respect for spirits in nature – has workedwith Buddhism and local knowledge topromote local conservation and land classifica-tion systems.

The 8th NESDP (Ch. 4, 2.2) included initia-tives to address fading traditions, co-ordinateland use policy and designate local ecosystemzones, cognizant of ‘any cultural and tradi-tional diversity within the zones so that localpeople’s existing lifestyles can contribute to thesustainable management of natural resourcesand the environment’. Yet the 1996 Commu-nity Forest Bill, which provided for establish-ment of community forests in protected areassuch as national parks, wildlife sanctuaries,watersheds, national forests and public useareas, was still stalled in controversy in 2002.Even if enacted, it would be useless withoutchanges to existing laws and official attitudes(Samabuddhi, 2001).

INTEGRATIVE LENSES

Some sustainability visions are restricted by

• spatial or political spheres of orientation,• natural bio-regional conditions or• social and physical issues associated with

poverty, production, consumption, qualityof life or open space.



229

Sustainability, however, has to range acrossdiverse groups and cultural practices,acknowledging that industrialization andurbanization fragment a wide range of natural,social and political environments. An over-arching sustainability principle is accordinglythat no part of any system exists indepen-dently of other parts (Throsby, 2000).

There is no blueprint for ensuring greenspace sustainability while also maintaining astrong economy, preserving local prerogativesand recognizing property rights (Evans, 1999).‘Just leave it to the market’ is not a responsewhen the only true national assets in the endare natural resources, infrastructure andpeople, and the pricing of services and facili-ties cannot capture all externalities (Neilson,1998). Yet Matson (2001) doubts that humaninstitutions are able to move outside discipli-nary and sectoral frameworks, or that theyknow how to manage multiple resource issuesas they interact with each other in specificplaces at specific times. Institutions includelegal rules, informal norms and any humanlydevised constraints on human interaction thatare consciously shaped by those with influence(Hodge, 2001). They encompass planningauthorities, sectoral development agencies,legislative and judicial authorities, the media,private sector organizations, NGOs, the scien-tific community ‘and other elements of civilsociety’ (McCauley, 2001).

Robert et al. (2000) argue that sustainabilityrequires an understanding of non-sustainabil-ity and that sustainability principles can logi-cally be designed as restrictions for achievingthe desired system conditions. Laws play a rolein enforcing restrictions and in facilitating pre-ferred future outcomes. They may even facili-tate evolving choices, which are still the subjectof ‘social learning’, provided that there is apolitical environment in which learning frommistakes is more rewarding than hiding them(Lee, 2001). Poorly drafted laws and unco-ordinated administrative systems in Thailand,however, contribute to unsustainability. Environmental matters have been fragmented

into 70-plus laws and regulations, with uncertain enforcement responsibilities and a weak enforcement history (Clark and Laohasiriwong, 1996; Tookey, 1999) – despitethe ambitious Enhancement and Conservationof National Environment Quality Act 1992.

At least 19 departments and seven ministrieshave had relevant responsibilities, with theMinistry for Science, Technology and Environ-ment bearing the central environmental andnatural resource policy role. Line ministrieshave dispatched officers to the provinces andenjoyed immense discretionary power inarrangements lacking co-ordinated environ-mental governance and ensured stakeholderengagement. Environmental impact assess-ment has also been of poor quality, with inadequate monitoring, public participationand awareness of the issues by politicians(ADB, 2001a; TDRI, 2002).

Policy integration

Policy integration is critical for redirectinginstitutions, resources and policy tools in away that allows economic actors to respondpositively to pressures for enhanced environ-mental performance at lower economic andsocial costs. This must be a supplement to, notsubstitute for, strong environmental policy inwhich ambitious, yet achievable, goals areclearly stated and consistently pursued (ADB,2001c). Policy integration requires

• a strong, well resourced regulatory agencywith authority to implement environmentalstandards effectively and efficiently,

• appropriate policy tools, including regula-tory standards, market-based instrumentsand mechanisms for public disclosure ofperformance information,

• institutions with capacity to learn, adapt tochange and respond flexibly,

• co-ordination across scales and• broad stakeholder support.

Even if there is political and bureaucraticgoodwill for a policy integration programme,



230

it is most unlikely that there will be sufficientcapability, especially in terms of financialresources and expertise, for simultaneousimplementation of the component parts of anintegrative sustainability agenda. This is wherea green space focus has the advantage of at least avoiding the dilemma of pursuing individual sectoral policies. Green space non-sustainability, moreover, is based in population-related, industrialization andurbanization trends – the very forces behindpolicy integration imperatives that are con-cerned with public participation, regulatorydesign and enforcement, planning and gover-nance processes (ADB, 2001a).

Just how much discretion should be dele-gated to local administration is a major con-sideration. Skinner et al. (2001) explain howhorizontal organizational linkages betweengovernment sectors at the local level canweaken vertical control by the national gov-ernment. The role of local agencies in thedevelopment process and the role of ruralindustries in local economies might beenhanced, without achieving sustainability. Inthe Skinner et al. study, central Chinese lawprovided for ownership and use rights, landuse planning and agricultural land protection,but each level of provincial and local govern-ment had significant discretion to interpret,and implement, a national mandate for main-taining a dynamic balance of cultivated land.Lifestyle improvements eventuated, but agri-cultural land was put under greater pressureor replaced by low-grade land. The new land development market devoured smallervillages and dispersed rural residences.

Gallant and Kwan (2001) have arguedstrongly for more, not less, local discretion. Intheir Korean study, they concluded that social,economic and environmental problems associ-ated with the land use planning system couldbe addressed by greater discretion. They wereundecided, however, about the best mecha-nism for overcoming ‘misplaced restraint’ and‘misplaced development’, since central coher-ence was still needed so as not to push local

authorities into political decision making. Aswell, cities typically have no coherent strategyand local communities, at any level, arecomplex entities that embody self-interest anddivisiveness, as much as interdependence andreciprocity (Millar and Aiken, 1995). For thesereasons, national governments must play aleadership role in organizing and directinggreen space sustainability. This still leavesroom for negotiating strategies and goals atsub-national levels.

Collaboration between Thai governmentand private sector representatives producedthe Prospective Plan for Enhancement and Conservation of National EnvironmentQuality 1997–2016, which contains a generalvision, specific goals and strategies for acceler-ating rehabilitation of renewable resources andredressing pollution and waste. The current9th NESDP – also developed through partici-patory planning – prioritizes poverty allevia-tion; good government and political reform;stability and strengthened development foun-dations. These initiatives, along with nationalrestructuring in 2002, are important sustain-ability building blocks, but have no practicallinks with the constitutional cultural vision orecological sustainability.

An integral vision

Humans divide and conceive of landscapes inparticular ways, so that a person who ownsproperty applies a knowledge different fromthat in a geographic information system orspecies list (Lee, 2001). Lee refers to land uselaw being shaped by utilitarian concerns suchas ownership. It has aimed at landscape homo-geneity, more than the storm-shaped texture ofa forest; the natural landscape is treated not asan objective, but as a starting point for humantransformation and domestication withinhuman time-scales. This utilitarianism stressesdivision of land and waters into individuallymanaged units, defined by owners and/or law, within boundaries set by human use andinstitutions seeking to maximize long-term



231

utility and high productivity. Ecological sustainability, however, stresses intercon-nections within and among ecosystems that are shaped and governed independent ofhuman institutions.

Law shaped by ecologically sustainableobjectives, ideally, would determine use rightsby natural conditions, such as a coastal barrieror wildlife habitat; impose on landowners acustodial, affirmative role for ecological func-tions and proclaim a dual purpose for land –‘transformative’ (for human utilization) andecological (Sax, 1993). Ecological resources,which have co-evolved over long periods ofhuman interaction, have been progressivelyattenuated, however, in Europe, including theUnited Kingdom (Tilzey, 2000). Yet re-creatinga ‘traditional landscape’ may be inappropriatefor today’s and tomorrow’s circumstances(Hodge, 2001). Consistent landscape indicators– cultural values expressed in patterns offorest, linear remnants along roads and streamreserves, farmlands and villages – are needed,therefore, as benchmarks for community par-ticipation and implementation of integrativeprotection and management legislation(Lennon, 2000).

Therefore, clarification of the green spacevision is imperative. Although his focus is onsustainable agriculture, Tilzey (2000) empha-sizes the need to differentiate areas and defineobjectives and prescriptions, in terms of localcharacteristics within a holistic context. Hepropounds articulation of desired future con-ditions with shorter-term milestones that pri-marily remove negative conditions on specialsites – where long-term change will secure positive overall sustainability in terms of food,biodiversity, climate, viability of communitiesand commodities. He also advocates a struc-tured, habitat-based approach to defininggeneric groupings of places, but this is a prob-lematic framework where there are existingland use classifications, land use policies, orregional and local physical plans with legalstatus. Boundaries, functions and status(within both national and international

networks) need to be defined with some preci-sion (Nicholson, 1971).

City-led initiatives?

Bangkok generates about a quarter of thenational income, and has immense slums. Thequestion arises of whether limited resourcesshould be concentrated on initially redressingmegacity sustainability problems (includingscarce green spaces), in priority to initiativeselsewhere in Thailand. Urban–rural inter-actions are relatively common when parentalhomes are in villages, and unsustainable citiesand agricultural land loss are both influencedby the increasing influx of poorer rural peopleinto city fringes. Slums notwithstanding, citiesare seen as places with improved access to education and health facilities and a greatervariety of employment and basic services thanin rural areas. Experiences and traditions of the poor, however, have not usually been integrated into urban planning and the poor,wherever they live, are unlikely to lift them-selves from the urgent need for survival toworry about problems such as green space(Fudge et al., 1996).

Fudge et al. (1996) claim that sustainablecities are really impossible because of theheavy burden placed on surrounding areas,and that the more well managed and environ-mentally sustainable a city might become, themore it would encourage further migrationfrom rural areas. Marcotullio (2001) contendsthat the key issue is not ‘sustainable cities’, butcities where built forms, government struc-tures, production systems, consumption pat-terns and waste generation and managementsystems are compatible with ever-widening,sustainable development goals. He argues for supra-local policies that recognize specificpaths of local development.

‘Ecological land use planning’ (Ecotrust,2002) is based on an expansive vision of a con-tinuum of urban, rural and wild areas. It relieson urban growth boundaries and zoning mea-sures to establish compact, high-density towns,



232

cities and metropolitan regions. The ensuingcost-effectiveness of the towns and cities, theoretically, protects the productivity of ruralareas, right to the urban edge – thereby main-taining or restoring a system of connectedwildlands, which in turn connect to neigh-bouring bioregions across the nation. Thisvision has hallmarks, however, of greenbeltand zoning mechanisms.

These Western mechanisms have largelyproved unsuccessful in controlling the chaoticmixture of urban and rural land uses on Asianmegacity fringes, where ecological, economicand cultural functions are performed in a vernacular blending of farms, woodlands andvillages (Yokohari et al., 2000). Yokohari et al.indicate that, although some failures may beattributed to poor controls and implementa-tion, strong controls (including martial law)have arguably affected the welfare of farmersand landowners and actually encouragedurban sprawl in satellite cities located imme-diately outside greenbelts. They advocate acontrolled mixture of the urban and rural as aplanning objective for Asian megacities. Vege-tated open spaces, including agriculturallands, in urban fringe areas perform wide eco-logical functions in their immediate and sur-rounding neighbourhoods. These areas can beaffordably restored to provide wildlife habitat;recreation, visual and amenity services; micro-climatic services associated with water reten-tion and heat control; landslide preventioncapability; air pollution control and ‘safe food’.

The Bangkok greenbelt plan was proposedin 1960 as a finger plan, allocating series ofdevelopment areas along radial transportationcorridors. This was replaced with a concentriccircles plan in 1971, and in 1982 a 25 kilometreradius greenbelt (enforceable through the Metropolitan Bangkok Regulations) was established containing 700 square kilometresof rice paddies. The primary function was notto restrict urban expansion, but to controlflooding by maintaining vast green openspace. While sprawl has not yet reached thatfar, there has been an increasingly high growth

rate of the Bangkok population in the 10–20kilometre zone since the 1980s. Land releasedfor urban development is also segmented withactive farmland, making the Yokohari et al.suggestions pertinent to the Bangkok fringe.

Embedded participation

Public participation concerning protectedareas, resource use controls and property rightenforcement should be a driving force toprevent policy integration being no more thana meaningless slogan (ADB, 2001c). Citizenparticipation in enlarging green space area perinhabitant is claimed as a green area ‘best practice’ (CEROI, 2002). Community-basedmanagement and integrated conservation anddevelopment strategies, however, have pre-sented ‘their participants with dilemmas –whether the emphasis should be placed moreon economic gain than on conservation andheritage values, and whether the developmentapproach used enables people to make aninformed choice about the matter’ (Lal andYoung, 2000). There may also be conflict overobjectives, definitions and principles, andbetween cultures, including different valuesassociated with intangible qualities such aspeople’s association with, or feelings for, aplace. Values may differ within groups, be heldwith varying strengths of conviction andchange over time. Individuals in groups – suchas traditional owners and users, environ-mentalists, recreationists and those who havelinks with previous uses and sites – may even change allegiances from time to time(Lennon and Mathews, 1996; Lockwood andSpennemann, 2000).

Thai NGOs have encouraged a broad cross-section of environmental participation andpromoted structural changes that foster pluralism (Quigley, 1995; Bunbongkarn, 1999).The Thai constitution is particularly support-ive of green space sustainability, althoughdemocratic decision-making and transparencyhave yet to be fully realized (Asia Foundation,2002; Soontornpipit, 2002; Tookey, 1999).



233

Senator Kaewsan has accordingly urged NGOsto use the constitution to force governmentagencies to protect the environment (Anon,2001), although the procedures to claim constitutional rights and any guarantee of theexercise of rights are dubious (Tookey, 1999)without appropriate legislation (Clark andLaohasiriwong, 1996).

To be truly effective, preclude unproductiveconfrontation and ensure that the economics ofsustainability are understood, participationmust not alienate planning and managementagencies, government servicing organizationsand private sector developers. Strategies, toolsand techniques for conflict management, plan-ning and management need to be carefully tailored to local characteristics in terms of thesustainability issues, resources, values andacceptability of the instruments themselves.Legal regulation is not sufficient for the task ofengendering trust, and imposing long-termconfidence in the reliability of individuals orsystems. A variety of mediatory mechanismsare also essential to ensure that governmentstructures, even those designed to promoteconflict resolution, are not working at oddswith the social characteristics of a community(Hall, 2000). Stakeholders themselves requiredevelopment, so that fairness is fully perceivedin planning processes, mutual benefits are realized, and planning processes are estab-lished as ‘the place to be’ (Moore et al., 2001).

CONCLUSIONS

The challenge of reconciling natural and cul-tural heritage with economic development(Berkes and Folke, 1994) is starkly evident in the foregoing survey of Thai green spaceconsiderations and institutional arrangements.The paper also highlights the importance of

• a clear, integrative, dynamic, green spacevision that is realistic yet challenging, and

• practical institutional mechanisms that linkformal and informal systems with social,

economic and environmental resource basesacross national and local levels, and thatsupport and re-inform linked adaptations ofa national vision.

Notwithstanding its positive developmenteffectiveness rating (Battaile, 2001), Thailandwill not restore depleted cultural and naturalcapital and ensure a fair spread of wealth creation gains and losses throughout its 76provinces until it strengthens its green spacevision. Thailand must also address concernsabout multiple agency involvement on theground; overlapping jurisdictional mandates;lack of coordination and accountability; vaguelaws and unwillingness to relinquish power tolocal levels (Phantumvanit and Sathirathai,1988; Soontornpipit, 2002; Tookey, 1999; UNDP,2002).

A pessimistic view of Thai capacity forimprovement is based on the 9th NESDP beingmerely a sentimental screen for protectingmiddle and ruling class interests underWestern development policies (Segschneider,2002). Marginalization of rural communities,widespread corruption and government fixa-tion on having an internationally competitiveeconomy are said to neutralize any moralcontent in Thai development visions andprevent recourse to older Thai ways, whichmight be more sustainable. There are of course major obstacles – possibly including aWesternized philosophy in UN Agenda 21(1992) itself – to an inclusive sustainabilityvision for Thailand (Thai Working Group onthe People’s Agenda, 2002). The 9th NESDPand the 1997 constitution together, however,contain a self-sufficient, but world-wise, visionincorporating ecological and social sustainabil-ity at local levels, which could be regarded asthe continuation of participatory gains in adiverse, changing society that has sufficientmoral coherence to forge an integrative vision.

Moral fortitude, reinforced by societal learn-ing milestones, is perhaps the real key to acapacity for green space sustainability that willwithstand narrow self-interest pressures, both



234

internal and external. From this perspective,Thai capacity has been strengthened by

• adaptive five-year NESD plans, especiallysince social development was linked witheconomic development in 1972,

• visionary framework institutions, particu-larly the 1992 environmental law (and sub-sequent environmental policy 1997–2016and shorter-term action plans) and the 1997constitution (and subsequent administrativecourt and constitutional court),

• an enduring royal role in sustaining Thaiculture, even during political turmoil,

• moral cohesion between royal sustainabilityprojects and Thai traditions embodied in the1997 constitution,

• a functioning democracy and environmentalmovement since 1997 and

• administrative devolution and accountabil-ity initiatives in 2002, responsive to envi-ronmental policy and constitutional reform.

REFERENCES

Allas M. 2001. Federal inquiry into public good con-servation: farmers push for compensation? NationalEnvironmental Law Review 2: 40–43.

Anon. 2001. NGOs urged to grab chance. Bangkok Post 23June; 4.

Asia Foundation. 2002. Thailand Program. http://www.asiafoundation.org/programs/prog-asia-thai.html [15July 2002].

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2001a. Thailand: CountryEnvironmental Policy Integration Analysis Report.http://adb.org/environment/aeo/pub/studies [15July 2002].

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2001b. Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries 32.http://www.adb.org [15 July 2002].

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2001c. Asian Environ-ment Outlook (AEO) 2001: Toward Policy Integration.http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/AEO/ [15July 2002].

Australian Centre for Innovation and International Com-petitiveness (ACIIC). 2001. The Future of Megacities.http://www.aciic.org.au [15 July 2002].

Battaile W. 2001. Annual Review of Development Effe-ctiveness 2001: Making Choices. World Bank.

http://www.worldbank.org/oed/arde2001 [31December 2002].

Berkes F, Folke C. 1994. Investing in cultural capital forsustainable use of natural capital. In Investing in NaturalCapital – the Ecological Approach to Sustainability,Jannson A, Hammer M, Folke C, Constanza R (eds).Island: Washington, DC; 128–149.

Bunbongkarn S. 1999. Thailand’s successful reforms.Journal of Democracy 10(2): 54–68.

Choong T. 1999. Pressure points. Asiaweek 17 December:44–48.

Cities Environment Reports on the Internet (CEROI).2002. In CEROI Encyclopedia. http://www.ceroi.net/[15 July 2002].

Clark E, Laohasiriwong S. 1996. Thailand’s quest for sus-tainable development. Australasian Journal of NaturalResources Law and Policy 3(1): 61–89.

Dearden P. 1995. Development, the environment andsocial differentiation in Northern Thailand. In Countingthe Costs: Economic Growth and Environmental Change in Thailand, Rigg J (ed.). Institute of Southeast AsianStudies: Singapore; 111–130.

Dutfield G. 2000. Intellectual Property Rights, Trade and Biodiversity: Seeds and Plant Varieties. Earthscan–IUCN:London.

Ecotrust. 2002. Patterns of a Conservation Economy.http://www.conservationeconomy.net [15 July 2002].

Evans G. 1999. Preserving Virginia’s Heritage: Approaches forProtecting Open Space. http://www.virginiaconservation.org/openspacepaper.htm#guidelines [15 July 2002].

Fudge C, McGrath D, Ducci M, Ahmed G, Coyula M,Mehta D. 1996. Metropolis 2000: a forum on urbanissues. SAIS Review 16(2): 169–190.

Gallant N, Kwang SK. 2001. Land zoning and local dis-cretion in the Korean planning system. Land Use Policy18(3): 233–243.

Ghimire K, Pimbert M. 1997. Social change and conser-vation: an overview of issues and concepts. In SocialChange and Conservation: Environmental Politics andImpacts of National Parks and Protected Areas, Ghimire K,Pimbert M (eds). Earthscan: London; 1–45.

Hall C. 2000. Integrated heritage management: dealingwith principles, conflict, trust and reconciling stake-holder differences. In Heritage Economics Conference.Australian Heritage Commission: Canberra; 173–182.

Haughton G. 1999. Environmental justice and the sus-tainable city. Journal of Planning Education and Research18(3): 233–243.

Hirsch P. 1993. The state in the village: the case of BanMai. The Ecologist 23(6): 205–211.

Hodge I. 2001. Beyond agri-environmental policy: towardan alternative model of rural environmental gover-nance. Land Use Policy 18(2): 99–111.

Horstmann A. 1999. Reconceptualizing civil society: theperformance of public culture in Southern Thailand. In



235

7th International Conference on Thai Studies. InternationalInstitute of Asian Studies–University of Amsterdam:Amsterdam.

International Union of Soil Science (IUSS). 1999. Meetingthe Challenges of Land Degradation in the 21st Century:2nd International Conference on Land Degradation. IUSS:Thailand.

Izak A-M, Swift M. 1994. On agricultural sustainabilityand its measurement in small-scale farming in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Economics 11: 105–125.

Kongrut A. 2001. Villagers likely to oppose new wetlandsdeclaration. Bangkok Post 27 January; 2.

Lal P, Young E. 2000. The role and relevance of indige-nous cultural capital in environment management inAustralia and the Pacific. In Heritage Economics Confer-ence. Australian Heritage Commission: Canberra;195–217.

Lee K. 2001. Searching for sustainability in the newcentury. Ecology Law Quarterly 27(4): 913–928.

Lee T. 1996. The Johore–Singapore–Riau growth triangle.In The Mega-Urban Regions of Southeast Asia, McGee T,Robinson I (eds). University of British Columbia Press:Vancouver; 269–281.

Lennon J. 2000. Conserving cultural heritage values innatural areas: the Australian experience. In HeritageEconomics Conference. Australian Heritage Commission:Canberra; 183–194.

Lennon J, Mathews S. 1996. Cultural Landscape Manage-ment: Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and ManagingCultural Landscapes in the Australian Alps National Parks.Lennon: Melbourne.

Lockwood M, Spennemann D. 2000. Value conflictsbetween natural and cultural heritage conservation –Australian experiences and the contribution of eco-nomics. In Heritage Economics Conference. AustralianHeritage Commission: Canberra; 218–242.

Marcotullio P. 2001. Asian urban sustainability in the eraof globalization. Habitat International 25(4): 577–598.

Matson P. 2001. Environmental challenges for the twenty-first century: interacting challenges and integrativesolutions. Ecology Law Quarterly 27(4): 1179–1238.

McCauley D. 2001. The future of environmental institu-tions in Asia. Asian Environment Outlook (AEO) 2001:Toward Policy Integration. http://www.adb.org/Economics/AEO/2001/ [15 July 2002].

Millar C, Aiken D. 1995. Conflict resolution in aquacul-ture: a matter of trust. In Coldwater Aquaculture inAtlantic Canada, Boghen A (ed.). Canadian Institute forResearch on Regional Development: Moncton; 617–645.

Moore S, Jennings S, Tacey W. 2001. Achieving sustain-able natural resource management outcomes on theground: the key elements of stakeholder development.Australian Journal of Environmental Management 8:91–98.

Morse S, McNamara N, Acholo M, Okwoli B. 2001. Sustainability indicators: the problem of integration.Sustainable Development 9: 1–15.

National Economic and Social Development Board(NESDB). 2002. National Economic and Social Development Plans. http://www.nesdb.go.th/ [15 July2002] (in Thai).

Neilson L. 1998. Management of dynamic urban regions.Management of Change in the Era of Economic Austerity,EAROPH Conference, Denpasar.

Nicholson E. 1971. Legal and political problems encoun-tered in establishing ecological reserves. 12th PacificScience Congress, Canberra.

Office of Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP).1995. Paankarnjadkarn singwadlom choomchon laepeuntisikhiaw khong paakmahanakorn [Urban environment and green spaces management plan formetropolitan region]. In Executive Summary Report forthe Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, Ministryof Science, Technology and Environment. Modus (in Thai):Bangkok; 5.17–5.19.

Phantumvanit D, Sathirathai S. 1988. Thailand: degrada-tion and development in a resource-rich land. Environ-ment 30(1): 10–18.

Population and Community Development AssociationThailand (PDA). 2002. Thai Business Initiative in RuralDevelopment (TBIRD) 1988. http://www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/pda/tbird.htm [15 July 2002].

Puglisi A, Fisher P. 1998. Divorcing nature in higher-density cities. Quadrant November: 24–28.

Quigley K. 1995. Environmental organizations and democratic consolidation in Thailand. Crossroads 9(2):1–30.

Rahman A. 2000. Annual Meeting Proceedings. Alliance forGlobal Sustainability. http://www.globalsustainability.org/ [15 July 2002].

Rajchagool C. 1999. The dynamics of ‘state action vs. civilaction’ at the village level. In 7th International Confer-ence on Thai Studies. International Institute of AsianStudies and University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam.

Reed C. 1995. Mediation and the new environmentagenda. In Mediating Environmental Conflicts: Theory and Practice, Blackburn J, Bruce W (eds). Quorum:Westport, CT; 8.

Reed D. 1992. Structural Adjustment and the Environment.WWF–Westview: Boulder, CO; 122–123.

Robert K-H, Holmberg J, von Weizsacker E. 2000. FactorX for subtle policy-making: objectives, potentials andobstacles. Greener Management International Autumn:25.

Royal Forest Department of Thailand. 2002. Thai ForestPolicy. http://www.Forest.go.th/ [15 July 2002].

Samabuddhi K. 2001. New bill may allow communityforests in protected woodlands. Bangkok Post 11 September; 4.



236

Satterthwaite D. 1999. The key issues and worksincluded. In Sustainable Cities, Satterthwaite D (ed.).Earthscan: London; 3–21.

Sax J. 1993. Property rights and the economy of nature:understanding Lucas v South Carolina CoastalCouncil. Stanford Law Review 45: 1433–1455.

Segschneider K. 2002. Debating limits to sustainabledevelopment? A case study of Thailand from a culturalperspective on sustainable development in SoutheastAsia. World Summit 2002 Johannesburg Papers No. 14.Heinrich Böll Foundation: Chiang Mai.

Skinner M, Kuhn R, Joseph A. 2001. Agricultural landprotection in China: a case study of local governance inZhejiang Province. Land Use Policy 18(4): 329–340.

Soontornpipit P (Thai Ombudsman). 2002. Is a Culture of Accountability Developing in Thailand?http://www.cdi.anu.edu.au/ [2 August 2002].

Sponsel L, Natadecha-Sponsel P. 1995. The role of Buddhism in creating a more sustainable society inThailand. In Counting the Costs: Economic Growth andEnvironmental Change in Thailand, Rigg J (ed.). Instituteof Southeast Asian Studies: Singapore; 27–46.

Szacki J. 1998. Ecological corridors and greenspace in thecity – a Polish perspective. In Ecological Sustainabilityand Urban Green Space Seminar, Beer A. EuropeanNetwork: Ringkøbing.

Thai Agenda 21. 1997. Implementation of Agenda 21 in Thai-land. UN Commission on Sustainable Development:New York; Fifth Session. http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/thai/natur.htm [15 July2002].

Thai Working Group on the People’s Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2002. Alternative CountryReport: Thailand’s Progress on Agenda 21. http://www.rio10.dk/index.php?a=show&doc_id=552 [31December 2002].

Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI). 2002. Natural Resources and Environment Program.http://www.info.trdri.or.th/pr_nre.htm [15 July 2002].

Thailand Environment Institute (TEI). 2002. Thai Urbanization and Environment Program (UEP) 1995.http://www.tei.or.th/Program_Projects/UEP [15 July2002].

Throsby D. 2000. Conceptualizing heritage as culturalcapital. In Heritage Economics Conference. AustralianHeritage Commission: Canberra; 10–17.

Tilzey M. 2000. Natural areas, the whole countrysideapproach and sustainable agriculture. Land Use Policy17(4): 279–294.

Tookey D. 1999. Southeast Asian environmentalism at itscrossroads: learning lessons from Thailand’s eclecticapproach to environmental law and policy. Georgetown

International Environmental Law Review XI(2): 307–362.

United Nations (UN) Agenda 21. 1992. United NationsConference on Environment and Development, Plenary, Rio de Janeiro. http://www.unep.org/documents/default.asp?documentid=52&articleid=49 [31 Decem-ber 2002].

United Nations Development Programme Thailand(UNDP). 2002. UNDP Programmes. http://www.undp.or.th/ [15 July 2002].

Wayuparb N. 2002. Green space planning in Thailand forurban sustainability. In 8th International SustainableDevelopment Research Conference. ERP Environment:University of Manchester; 495–504.

Williamson I. 2001. Land administration ‘best practice’providing the infrastructure for land policy implemen-tation. Land Use Policy 18(4): 297–307.

Wittayapak C. 1999. Community culture revisited: com-munity as a political space for struggles over naturalresources and cultural meaning. In 7th InternationalConference on Thai Studies. International Institute ofAsian Studies–University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam.

Wunder S. 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests– what scope for synergies? World Development 29(11):1817–1833.

Yokohari M, Takeuchi K, Watanabe T, Yokota S. 2000.Beyond greenbelts and zoning: a new planning conceptfor the environment of Asian mega-cities. Landscape andUrban Planning 47(3/4): 159–171.

BIOGRAPHY

Professor (Emeritus) Patricia Ryan (corre-sponding author) is Adjunct Professor in the Graduate School of the Environment atMacquarie University. She was previously aProfessor in the Department of Business, Division of Economic and Financial Studies atMacquarie University. She can be contacted atthe Graduate School of the Environment, Division of Environmental and Life Sciences,Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia2109.Tel.: +61 2 9850 6295E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Natarika Wayuparb is also based at the Graduate School of the Environment atMacquarie University.



237

Green space sustainability in Thailand

Documents

Transcript of Green space sustainability in Thailand