The vacation areas in the city should
be used for constructing buildings instead of plantation trees. Do you agree or
disagree ?
How to use vast swathes of land lying idle in metropolis has,
of late, become a matter of profound debate. While some favor building on these
areas, others prefer to let these be maintained as green belts.
On one hand, proponents of building on vacant land parcels
suggest, in an era, where big cities are experiencing a severe shortage of
space, maintaining free spaces, that could be used to accommodate city dwellers
and businesses, would be a waste of resources. This would exacerbate an already
deteriorating quality of life in urban
areas. This might also result in population shifting to areas outside big
cities, which would predispose and proliferate ecological disasters to other
areas.
On the other, environmentalists vehemently rally behind
sustaining free areas in their pristine condition, and suggest these should instead
be populated with more trees: these green pockets act as lungs of cities and
help mitigate pollutions levels. Several studies elucidate that trees help in
absorbing and storing carbon dioxide – a major greenhouse gas – and other suspended effluents in the environment.
Denuding vacant parcels would also lead to loss of precipitation – green areas
attract moisture, and hence rains.
Moreover, green buffers act as a refuge that offers respite to
stressed out city inhabitants - subjected
to braving a life in alleys of concrete jungles. Urban sprawl has embraced most
areas and has transformed every lane into a tarmac covered surface which is
heightening stress. Green buffers offer peaceful surroundings, with idyllic
beauty, and render opportunities to escape mundane, and relax.
In a nutshell, replacing green areas with built up
structures would surely invite more trouble for none other than mankind. After
all, environment can survive without humans, but humans would find hard to live
on a hostile planet bereft of hospitable conditions.