Opinions differ whether the absence of outdoor spaces in small housing units, fuelled by urban population growth, is beneficial or not. Notwithstanding certain benefits, I believe that this phenomenon is a net negative.
On the one hand, many argue that a lack of open areas can promote minimalism. According to them, when such spaces are excluded, so are the expenses, time and effort required for their upkeep. Not only can this help them lead a less cluttered lifestyle, but the saved amounts can also be effectively allocated to other more important priorities, such as paying for utility bills or healthcare services. Nevertheless, this perspective overlooks the pernicious psychological effects of cramped living areas. Lacking access to nature has been conclusively linked with worsening mental well-being, and smaller homes only serve to amplify this. The elimination of outdoor spaces can deprive urban residents, already negatively impacted by their fast pace of life, of their primary outlet for pent-up emotions, exacerbating issues that seem otherwise manageable.
On the other hand, one major drawback of limited living spaces is that it strips people of the opportunity to mitigate global warming. As addressing this alarming environmental crisis demands a concerted effort, individuals themselves must contribute to alleviating the problems, with the most feasible way to do so is to plant more trees in their living areas. However, the concrete jungles many are living in may discourage such an attempt by prohibiting them from tending to a small tree, let alone a garden, in such a limited area. Should this situation persist, mankind will be left with an intractable challenge and climate change will be allowed to perpetuate unchecked.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that the prevalence of smaller homes proves deleterious overall. While helping to encourage a minimalist way of life, the trend may take its toll on citizens’ mental health. Additionally, it might thwart individual efforts to combat climate change.