An Extended Academic Essay Bài luận học thuật mở rộng

It is widely acknowledged that green space makes cities healthier and more pleasant. What remains contested is how limited public money should be spent. This essay draws on three practice sources to argue that cities should, first and foremost, give priority to many small green spaces over a few large parks. The environmental case is, by and large, well supported. Source C (GrammUp, 2026) found that streets with continuous tree cover were noticeably cooler in the afternoon, and its authors estimate that wider cover could reduce electricity demand. Crucially, the effect was strongest in densely built districts, which are precisely the areas with the least space for large parks. The health evidence points in the same direction, albeit less conclusively. Source D (GrammUp, 2025) reports that residents within 300 metres of a park experienced lower stress, although the authors caution that this association may reflect differences in age and income. If the benefits depend on distance, as the data suggest, it is the distribution of green space rather than its total size that matters. Far from being a minor concern, the social cost of greening deserves equal attention. Source E (GrammUp, 2026) warns that large new parks may raise housing prices and displace low-income residents. Granted, small parks cannot host festivals or attract tourists; in light of this risk, however, they offer a fairer way of sharing the benefits. On balance, the three sources suggest that the most effective strategy is also the most equitable one. In the long run, cities that spread trees and small parks across every district are likely to be cooler, healthier and fairer than those that concentrate investment in a single showcase park.