Text 1
In a 2023 study, urban planner Dr. Elena Rostova argues that creating small public parks, or "pocket parks," in densely populated cities is the most cost-effective method to improve residents' mental health. Rostova points to surveys showing that city dwellers living within a five-minute walk of a pocket park reported a 15% increase in life satisfaction. She concludes that municipalities should focus their budgets on building these small, local green spaces rather than investing in large, centralized city parks, which require significant land acquisition and higher maintenance costs.
Text 2
Ecologist Dr. Marcus Vance acknowledges that small green spaces offer immediate emotional benefits to nearby residents. However, Vance argues that local governments must not abandon the development of large, centralized parks. According to Vance's research, large parks are essential for sustaining urban biodiversity, supporting native bird populations, and mitigating the urban heat island effect—ecological functions that pocket parks are simply too small to perform. Therefore, Vance maintains that a balanced approach is necessary for a city’s long-term environmental health.
Based on the texts, how would Vance (Text 2) most likely respond to Rostova’s recommendation (Text 1) that cities should prioritize funding for pocket parks over large centralized parks?
- By arguing that it overlooks the crucial ecological services that only larger green spaces can offer.Cevap
- BBy asserting that pocket parks do not actually improve the mental health or well-being of urban residents.
- CBy claiming that large centralized parks are actually less expensive to build and maintain than pocket parks.
- DBy suggesting that cities should completely stop funding pocket parks in order to focus exclusively on environmental conservation.