Urban forest benefits in developing and industrializing countries

When reflecting on the significance and potential of urban and peri-urban forests in developing and industrializing countries, some questions immediately come to mind. Does it make sense to speak of urban and peri-urban forestry (UPF) by marking differences among countries? To what extent does the stage of economic development determine/influence the way the potential benefits from urban and peri-urban forests are perceived and valued? On the one hand, national and local policies, decentralization and technical expertise and capacity at the different levels of government, influence the way in which each country regulates the institutional relationships between the central authorities and municipal government, particularly on the management of open spaces. On the other hand, the historical and cultural heritage of a country as well as lifestyles, attitude to outdoor life, and spiritual and religious views, deeply influence the way people perceive the benefits of urban trees and forests, especially when comparing developed and developing/industrializing countries. The range of needs and quality of life expectations in developing countries is much wider than in developed ones, with some basic benefits (often overlooked in developed countries) playing a key role for the livelihood of poor urban dwellers. Issues such as income, poverty, unemployment, migration, access to sanitation or health services, access to and use of food and energy resources, or access to education and capacity building opportunities deeply influence the way in which local communities value and utilize urban and peri-urban forests. This chapter highlights the special needs and requirements for the development of UPF in developing countries. It identifies specific governance approaches to optimize the contribution of urban and peri-urban forests to improved livelihoods, human health and well-being. However, the reflections and indications that follow are not only relevant to developing countries. Indeed, in many cities around the world, independently from their stage of development, the divide between rich and poor shapes cities and heavily affects livelihoods, public health, and quality of life. In Manila, like in Naples or Baltimore and Bogota (e.g. Escobedo et al., 2015), the gap in character of places, living conditions, and access to basic services between rich and poor neighbourhoods can be as wide as the differences between developed and developing countries, and different approaches may be needed to respond to the different needs.