The growth in population in cities means that parks should now be used for residential and business purposes. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Over the past decades, the human population on Earth has been increasing significantly, especially in

cities

, following their development and trends of urbanisation.

Although

some feel that

this

would imply the conversion of

parks

into houses and offices, I believe that green islands in

cities

are not endangered at all for two reasons.

First,

parks

and forests play an essential role in producing fresh air for

cities

. It is common knowledge that trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide and, in turn, produce oxygen.

However

, some claim that the amount of pollution and gases emitted by factories and cars in a megalopolis cause irretrievable damage to the environment and cannot be reduced. In fact, green areas are deemed the lungs of big

cities

and contribute a lot to the stabilisation of the ecological situation there. I would argue that without

parks

and forests life of city dwellers would have become unbearable, people just casually fail to notice how subtle the work of plants is. The second and, in my opinion, the most convincing reason is that

parks

are the most common recreation areas in big

cities

. It is there where the vast majority of residents usually choose to spend their weekends or have a walk after a long working day. Replacement of green areas with houses and offices would sap the life out of an already lifeless city and would have detrimental repercussions on both the physical and mental health of the residents, which would result in increased levels of stress and morbidity among citizens. In conclusion, not only do

parks

ameliorate ecological conditions in megalopolises, but they

also

make a positive and crucial contribution to the wellness and well-being of city dwellers.

Therefore

, I firmly believe that

parks

and forests in

cities

should remain intact.