In some metropolitan areas, specific lands are set for public service to enjoy. However, some people argue that these areas are likely to be replaced by living spaces due to the increase in population. I completely disagree with this idea because multiple drawbacks might emerge in terms of public health, environmental threats, and infrastructure strain.
The main reason in support preserving parkland is to improve public health. The government provides these areas not simply as a place of entertainment, but also offering access to residents who live in apartments or houses without green spaces. So that, they visit theme parks to have a sense of relaxation and breathtaking scenery which could reduce stress and develop mental and physical well-being. If the parklands are removed by residential houses, it will result in declining public health as well as fresh oxygen.
Another reason for cultivating parkland in some cities is to reduce environmental threats. Urban areas are invariably bustling places, containing entertainment and business hub which cause traffic congestion and air pollution. The existence of trees and plants in parklands can absorb carbon footprint, and release oxygen, aiding to cut down on air pollution. In addition, it also absorbs rainwater to prevent from natural disaster that might come like flooding. For example, in Jakarta as a capital city of Indonesia, with the rise of immigrants, instead of removing parklands for more housing, the government encourages many corporations and institutions to provide homestay for their workforce.
In conclusion, there is no benefits for replacing a source of cooling centre in metropolitan areas by living spaces for newcomers. Instead, the parkland should expand to promote public health, and decrease environmental issue.