As urban areas increasingly encroach on wilderness, some environmentalists view this as detrimental to the environment. Personally, I completely agree with this perspective, finding it both plausible and evident.
Admittedly, cities have become environments that can support the survival of certain animals. In fact, built-up areas often teem with resources that are limited in natural habitats, including food, water, and nesting sites, leading to higher reproduction rates and lower infant mortality among urban wildlife. However, this often results in ecological homogenization, as only a small number of species can thrive on such abundant resources. For example, rats and pigeons can withstand the crowded and polluted conditions of cities, whereas large mammals like tigers or deer cannot.
Moreover, urbanization and the ensuing human activities have had adverse impacts on the environment. Chief among these is water pollution, which results from the discharge of untreated wastewater from both domestic and industrial sources into natural water bodies. For instance, the To Lich River in Vietnam’s capital is so chemically contaminated and low in oxygen that it can no longer support fish and aquatic plants. Additionally, construction debris and heavy metals are often found in the soil of urbanized areas, harming the diversity of beneficial microorganisms. Consequently, this slows down decomposition processes in the soil, which are crucial to the balance of ecosystems.
In conclusion, while urbanization may facilitate the survival of certain species, it does so at the expense of other animals and leads to severe water and soil pollution. Thus, I firmly hold the position that urban sprawl is detrimental, at least from an ecological standpoint.