Benefits and Returns of Adopt-A-Park Programme in Kuala Lumpur
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v4i12.1930Keywords:
Adopt-A-Park Programme, Adoption, Urban Park, Benefits and ReturnsAbstract
A collaborative partnership between local authorities and corporate agencies in maintaining and managing urban public parks through the Adopt-A-Park Programme has become a standard approach throughout the United States and Europe. In the Malaysian context, this programme came into the limelight of the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) practices via the Greener Kuala Lumpur initiatives. Between 2012 and 2018, fifteen corporate agencies have shown their proactive involvement through corporate social responsibility (CSR) to beautify and maintain the urban green spaces in Kuala Lumpur via the park adoption programme which helped Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur / KL City Hall (DBKL) to manage its public parks effectively despite the limited budget. This paper aims to examine the benefits and returns of the Adopt-A-Park Programme at the Laman @ Eco Sky and the Metropolis Park to DBKL, park users and park adopters. Park users' satisfaction and allocations spent by the corporate adopters are analysed descriptively. Results show that while DBKL saved about RM24 million of the maintenance cost, 94% of the adopted park users are satisfied with the quality of the park. This programme should include more parks, especially in low-income communities.
Keywords: Adopt-A-Park Programme, Adoption, Urban Park, Benefits and Returns
eISSN: 2398-4287 © 2019. The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA cE-Bs by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open-access article under the CC BYNC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v4i12.1930
References
Akmar, C.C. Konijnendijk, M. Sreetheran, and K. Nilsson. (2011). Greenspace Planning and Management in Klang Valley, Peninsular Malaysia, Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 37(3), 99-107.
Ayeghi, A. and Ujang, N. (2014). The impact of physical features on user attachment to Kuala Lumpur, 3(3), 44–59.
Aziz, N.A.A. (2012). Green space use and management in Malaysia, Forest and Landscape Research, 51, 1–60.
Burnett, G.W. & Harrington L.M.B. (1994). Early national park adoption in sub-Saharan Africa, Society & Natural Resources, 7:2, 155-168. https://doi 10.1080/08941929409380853
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city, Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
DBKL. (2016). Pembentangan kajian penilaian outcome projek Greener KL, Kementerian Wilayah Persekutuan.
Farah, A. (2017). Naza TTDI to spend RM20m for KL Metropolis' Greener KL initiative, New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/04/226794/naza-ttdi-spend-rm20m-kl-metropolis-greener-kl-initiative
Gulsrud, N. (2015). The role of green space in city branding: an urban governance perspective.
Ismail.S.M et al. (2018). Going for green cities: the role of urban and peri-urban forestry in creating the ambience of the liveable city in Malaysia, Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research, 401-417. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_24
Jahncke, H., Hygge, S., Halin, N., Green, A. M., & Dimberg, K. (2011). Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 373–382. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp .2011.07.002.
Jepson, P. & Whittaker, R.J. (2002). Histories of Protected Areas: Internationalisation of Conservationist Values and their Adoption in the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia), Environment and History, 8(2), 129-172. https://doi.org/10.3197/096734002129342620
Kanji, R., & Agrawal, R. (2019). Building a society conducive to the use of corporate social responsibility as a tool to develop disaster resilience with sustainable development as the goal: an interpretive structural modelling approach in the Indian context, Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 4(1). https://doi.10.1186/s41180-019-0025-7
Kanniah, K.D. (2017). Quantifying green cover change for sustainable urban planning: a case of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Malaysia Sustainable Cities Program, Working Paper Series. https://scienceimpact.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Kanniah.pdf
Kathy, B. (2019). KL Metropolis poised to set a new bar, New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/property/2019/04/476528/kl-metropolis-poised-set-new-bar
Konijnendijk, C. (2010). Green cities, competitive cities – promoting the role of green space in city branding.
Lu, J.Y., and Castka, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in Malaysia -experts' views and perspectives, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(3), 146-154. https://doi 10.1002/csr.184
Mansor, M., Zakariya, K., & Harun, N.Z. (2019). Challenges on use of recreational parks in Kuala Lumpur, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 24(1): 141–162. https://doi.org/10.21315/jcdc2019.24.1.8
Mohd. Nasir, N. E., Jasni, N.S., Mohd Sallem, N.R. & Aziz, N.F. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: an overview from Malaysia, Journal of Applied Environmental and Applied Sciences.
Nathan, Y.T. (2015). EcoWorld launches public park after RM1mil upgrade, The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/metro/community/2015/08/25/preserving-citys-greenery-ecoworld-launches-public-park-after-rm1mil-upgrade#E7oOD6cijyFAF2RJ.99
Naza TTDI (2017). http://www.naza.com.my/naza-ttdi-to-spend-rm20-million-for-the-adoption-of-mertopolis-park-at-kl-metropolis-under-greener-kl-initiative/
Oseland, N. (2009). The impact of psychological needs on office design. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11(4), 244–254. https ://doi.org/10.1108/14630 01091 10067 38
Race, D. & Curtis, A. (2007). Adoption of farm forestry in Victoria: linking policy with practice, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 14(3), 166-178. http://www.eianz.org/index.cfm?objectid=032DC1DF-65BF-EBC1- 22D6F697C5624CAD
Ramasamy B & Ting HW. (2004). A comparative analysis of corporate social responsibility awareness: Malaysian and Singaporean firms, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship 13, 109-123.
Rashid MZA & Ibrahim S. (2002). Executive and management attitudes towards corporate social responsibility in Malaysia. Corporate Governance, 2, 10–16.
Thompson P, Zakaria Z. (2004). Corporate social responsibility reporting in Malaysia: progress and prospects. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13, 125-136.
Wan Fauzi, Z.H. (2015). Eco Sky enjoys over 70% take-up since the November 2013 launch, EdgeProp. https://www.edgeprop.my/content/eco-sky-enjoys-over-70-take-november-2013-launch
Wong, J. (2015). Greening KL with more pocket parks, Focus Malaysia. http://www.focusmalaysia.my/Assets/greening-kl-with-more-pocket-parks
PEMANDU (2012). Greater Kuala Lumpur/ Klang Valley, Economic Transformation Program (ETP). http://etp.pemandu.gov.my/Greater_Kuala_Lumpur_Klang_Valley-@-Greater_Kuala_Lumpur-s-Klang_Valley.aspx
Wang, B., & Adolphe, L. (2012). Spirit of place in the science park. Take ZJ Inno-Park as an example. In Proceedings of the international congress on ambiences (551–556).
Yau et al. (2016). Greater Kuala Lumpur as a smart city: A case study on technology opportunities, 2016 8th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology, KST 2016, 96-101. https://doi.org/10.1109/KST.2016.7440496
Zhang, Y. H. (2002). A developing economy-oriented model for science park management. Doctor of Philosophy thesis.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Jamalunlaili Abdullah, Raziah Ahmad, Muhammad Hafiz Zainal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
