The majority of cities struggle with housing crisis, wherein insufficient amount of land is available for public facilities. However, some people think that it could be mitigated by introducing new buildings instead of park areas, since these lands are more suitable for housing. This essay disagrees with this statement because park lands should be preserved to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emission in urban areas, and this will negatively impact citizens’ health, as they will have a limited access to green spots.
The prominent reason for the necessity of not reassigning parks is that green areas provide an abundance of plants, which reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. Consequently, they negatively impact on both the environment and residents’ health. Furthermore, the decline in number of parks will correlate with the increase of air pollution. For example, the residential areas with parks have significantly higher air quality compared to those that do not.
Although the preservation of park areas reduces the level of air pollution, it also contributes to the individuals’ health, as it provides more oxygen, which therefore reduces the risks of lung diseases. Furthermore, parks introduce a great deal of activities, wherein families and friends may spend time together, allowing people to participate in sports or having a walk. For instance, the vast majority of people prefer living near green spaces, since they have positive impact on lifestyle and expand the outdoors options.
In conclusion, all the arguments above show that parks are crucial for the public, and having replaced them by residential buildings would mean the detrimentally impact on local residents. On this basis, local governments should maintain those areas for enhancing people’s well-being and find alternatives to fight with housing crisis.