Big, Not Small, City Parks Offer Benefits

High-density neighborhoods with grand parks, not low-density neighborhoods with ample lawns and smaller public spaces, is significantly better for a city

2015-09-city-hall-719963_1280.jpg

By Cassie Owens

Next City

Is there a right way to green a city? Yes, University of Exeter researchers say, planning high-density neighborhoods with grand parks, as opposed to low-density neighborhoods with ample lawns and smaller public spaces, is significantly better for a city’s ecosystem and residents.

In times of rapid urbanization, the Exeter-based authorsof a new study in September’s Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment argue that setting aside larger parkland, or “land sparing,” is key for environmental stability globally. (The latest U.N. forecast estimates that two-thirds of world’s population will live in cities by 2050; more than half of the current population already does.)

“There are a lot of studies that show that gardens are good for ecosystems, nature and biodiversity, and that is absolutely true,” says Iain Stott, one of the authors. “But the key point here is: If you don’t include large contiguous green spaces, then you’re probably not going to be providing a., as high as amount of ecosystem services as you could, and b., as many ecosystem services as you could.”

An ecosystem service is an ecological benefit, like whether it can support robust foodways, or has favorable conditions for flood management or inspires fond connections to local heritage through its terrain.

Read full coverage here.