Authorities of capitals and major cities encounter challenges in providing sufficient residential facilities for the increasing population. Some politicians are of the opinion that local parks can be replaced by new housing projects to mitigate the rising crises. This essay strongly disagrees with these suggestions, because they have adverse consequences on individuals and the environment.
First and foremost, the overspread of the built area at the expense of reducing the green areas provided by the parks would significantly deteriorate the environment. It is known that greenery is responsible for absorbing carbon dioxide, while construction activities are always accompanied by carbon emissions, so these practices would subsequently raise problems like urban heat islands, which in turn, contribute to global warming and climate change. Recent research illustrated the role of greenery in mitigating climate change.
On the other hand, People always seek work-life balance, as life is not only about work and residence but also about entertainment and social engagement, where parks are considered the appropriate place for both activities. For instance, in parks, people can have their quality leisure time, as they can interact with others, relax and do some entertaining activities. According to psychiatrists, people who do not have their quality spare time are more likely to suffer from depression than others by more than 60 per cent.
In conclusion, demolishing public areas like parks can never be an acceptable solution for raising housing challenges that governments face nowadays, since they are important for both mitigating climate change and human well-being.