owadays, the population is growing day by day. As a result, new houses are being constructed instead of preserving natural spaces and beauty. However, regardless of the fact that housing is needed, I firmly belive that the drawbacks of destroying natural areas outweigt the disadvantage.
On the one side of spectrum, natural places are extremely important for the mental and physical well-being of an individual. As a matter of fact, many people choose to go to riverside, forests or lackes during weekends not just to relax or camp, but also to be in the warmth of nature. Such locations provide a breck from the noice of city life. if such places destroyed, millions of animals and birds will daies which are important for life cycle. Moreover, deforatation could also led to massive change in climate. For example, the lush greenary attrect rains, which is necessary for human life. Another disavantage the one can not spike in the level of toxic gas on the face of the planet. To put in simple english, with trees being cut, the level of harmful gases along with the shortage of oxygen could invite a plethora pf health conserns. For instance, delhi city faces sevaral health problem due to poor air quality.
On the other side of spectrum, building houses in natural areas helps solve the burgeoning problem of accommodation shortage in tier 2 and tier 3 cities. As more people move to urban areas, the demand for pocket friendly ddwellings increases. Moreover, Using open natural land allows government and companies to quick build new relationships. Moreover, construction projects can create jobs and improve tanspotation infrastructure in near by areas, bringing some economic benefits.
In conclusion, using natural area for development may offer some solution, it can comes at a high cost to the enviroment and people’s well being. In the long term the disadvantages clearly outweigt the advantages.