Task 2: More and more people move into cities, so some governments replace farmland and parks near cities with more houses. Is this a positive or negative development?

It is the fact that manifold people have an inclination to live in cities, thus, some governments deploy to substitute farmland and parks near the city areas with an array of houses. It is my contention that the government proposal of replacing farmland and parks exert both merits and demerits.

On the one hand, the substitution of farmland and parks in the vicinity of cities has multiple advantages. First of all, the changing of farmland and parks into houses allows governments to ease the overcrowded population in the city centers. As a result, a host of public services such as schools, or hospitals could not be overloaded and could have chances to the improvement of services. In addition, expanding space for houses is a contributing factor to the limitation of traffic congestion. Therefore, the replacement of farmland and parks creates a good condition for people to move around cities with ease and reduce the accidents rate.

On the other hand, governments should consider the maintenance of agricultural lands and parks due to manifold advantages. Firstly, the land for agriculture paves the way for farmers to have job opportunities such as cultivation, or breeding. As a consequence, farmers could earn money and have a stable income to adapt to the living standard. Secondly, farmland and parks play an integral part in the ecosystem. Thus, if government deprives people of the land for farms and parks, it could put the ecosystem in jeopardy due to the loss of imbalance of the ecological environment.

To sum up, the replacement of farmland and parks to build more houses in cities of governments exerts both negative and positive impacts.