As the cities grow, there are many challenges to create open space planning as the land price became so unbearable which leads greed to the people in low-income countries and cause a serious impact on city itself. The low mentality of people remains strong when it comes "Greed" and biased policy from the government official itself.
The concept of defining the Land in between rich and poor plays a important role in Nepal as being populist politics which lead the by-laws and rules to be drowned for their beneficial use. The "Unfair" policies, lack of development plans and lack of growth controlling mechanisms lead the failure of addressing to preserve the open space in the developing cities and in Nepal, this often happens as the government is so poor to address the long term plan for overall development of rural and urban areas with the process and procedures of development rights in the Country especially for the provision of good infrastructure facilities and services.
Following are the main challenges:
- Lack of Open Space
- Lack of Open Space through Urban Expansion
- Inefficient distortion of Urban Form
- Unsustainable Open Space Design
- Poor Open Space Design
- Inequitable distribution of Open Space
- The need for Institutional Coordination
Lack of Open Space:
Many cities suffer from inadequate levels of green space and vegetative cover. This situation normally results from the inability to assemble land for open space which is a major, often dominant issues in rapidly growing cities where land costs are very high and rising rapidly. Many cities cannot afford to purchase large tracts of land for open space. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that land costs are often highest where open space is most needed. For example in high density neighbourhood of large metropolitan areas making it difficult to assemble the large tracts of land for major parks or a system to define for it. On the urban periphery , land use designations which restricts development to preserve agricultural land, natural habitat, scenic beauty and environmental use land are often strongly opposed by the landowners, given the likely decline in the land's market value. Assembling land for open space therefore needs to involve a variety of instruments and stakeholders including the public sectors, the private sectors and the civil society. The most commonly used measures for assessing the adequacy of the stock of open space or major park space are green space per capita and accessibility.
Lack of Open Space through Urban Expansion
Urbanization processes on the fringe often lead to the loss of open spaces that should be protected for scenic, recreational, agricultural or environmental services. Urbanization often disrupts ecological systems, with costs to humans and wildlife. For example, hiking corridors may be disrupted or wildlife habitat cut into isolated pieces. This issue has a significant institutional dimension, with similar problems in many cities worldwide.
One problem is that small towns or satellite communities often have limited green space because they have local leadership that does not value green space or cannot fiscally afford to protect it. As a result, when these communities are enveloped by the outward spread of metropolitan areas, they tend to lack adequate green space. Another problem is that green space is often protected by national sectoral agencies, e.g., ministries of forestry, agriculture, water, etc.
However, when the land is urbanized, the national ministries often lose jurisdiction to local ones, resulting in the loss of high potential urban green space.
Inefficient distortion of Urban Form
Green space, especially at the city-wide level, is not always efficiently planned. Greenbelts may force the city to skip over the belt, resulting in longer commuter times, greater energy use, etc. Too many large parks in a city will result in an increased need for land conversion on the edge, or may result in lower densities and large gaps in built form that make rapid transit systems less feasible. Cities must take the role of green space as an “urban shaper” very seriously.
Unsustainable Open Space Design
Conventional urban greening is often based on unsustainable landscaping and design. Playing fields and sod strips may add to aesthetic and recreational values, but they are resource consuming (requiring more water than natural plants), and they do not contribute to wildlife or habitat conservation. In arid cities, such green space, if on a large scale, is essentially unsustainable. Desert cities, worldwide, are known for inappropriate public and private open spaces, which are excessively water intensive.
Insufficient Tree Cover
Few elements enhance the aesthetics of a city as much as tree-lined streets or boulevards. However,
care must be taken to locate trees so that roots do not interfere with utilities which run down the front of streets and yards. In cities subject to snow, dust storms, etc., tree lined streets can, to some extent, protect roadways, leading to safer driving conditions.
Poor Open Space Design
Few communities are designed with parks as a central component. Green space is usually treated as an “add on” feature and, as a result, potential benefits are not fully realized. In fact, as has be spatial distortions may actually generate negative impacts. At the neighborhood level, similar distortions occur. This is particularly the case where green space is provided by developers as part of a municipal subdivision or planning legal frameworks – a frequent requirement worldwide. Developers often cede the least develop-able land, rather than the most appropriate land, for parks or open space. For example, a developer may cede unattractive land at the edge of the community, rather than at a more centrally located site that would be more accessible. In some cases, these spaces become risky places where a lot of crime and violence take place. Fragmented patches of open spaces in urban areas do not provide for free movement of urban wildlife from one patch to another, which reduces biodiversity in the urban environment.
Inequitable distribution of Open Space
Many cities, both those with adequate aggregate green space and those with an overall shortage of green space, suffer from inequities and the green space, which does exist, is inequitably distributed, with the greatest shortages occurring in lower-income areas.
The need for Institutional Coordination
City-level open space planning is further complicated by negotiations between public, private and quasi-public actors. Different public departments may be responsible for managing and maintaining different types of public land, such as: parks and conservation areas; municipal land reserves, including those zoned for future parks, recreation, pathways, roads and utility rights-of-way; boulevards; public golf courses; public cemeteries and memorial parks; land for water retention; and provincial or national lands, such as riverbeds, islands, urban national parks and reserves. For example, while parks generally fall under the auspices of parks departments, golf courses are usually managed by recreation departments, and public utility agencies are often responsible for maintaining water retention lands. Private open spaces that form important parts of a city’s open space system include: landscaped areas of commercial properties; landscaped areas, including parks, and even lakes within industrial parks; setbacks on lots (which are often required by law); utility easements and rights-of-way, which must be kept free of buildings; golf courses; cemeteries and memorial parks; private parks (private companies may develop and maintain urban parks as a community service/goodwill mechanism); and green spaces in large scale urban developments. Quasi-public lands are often owned by semi autonomous agencies, such as school boards, state enterprises or urban/industrial development authorities. Important quasi-public open spaces include: school playgrounds; green space in industrial parks owned and managed by quasi-public entities (e.g., in China); religious facilities (churches, temples, mosques); rights-of-way; and other land frequently granted to state enterprises, such as railroad companies, either for future use or to compensate the costs of developing a railroad system.
