Ielts 2026 Reading Question 11

Section A Rapid urbanization has altered the environment in ways that have profound implications for public health. More than half of the world's population now lives in urban areas, and the United Nations projects that this proportion will increase to around two-thirds by 2050. Urban growth typically reduces the extent of natural vegetation and replaces permeable soils with buildings and pavements. As a result, cities experience higher temperatures, altered hydrological cycles, and degraded air quality. Urban green spaces—parks, street trees, community gardens and green roofs—mitigate many of these effects by providing ecosystem services such as cooling through shade and evapotranspiration, interception of rainfall, and removal of air pollutants. Beyond these physical benefits, green spaces are increasingly recognised for their contribution to psychological wellbeing and social cohesion. Consequently, the planning and maintenance of urban greenery has become a central concern for policymakers seeking to promote resilient and healthy cities. Section B Evidence linking urban green space to health outcomes has accumulated across multiple study designs. Epidemiological cohort studies indicate associations between proximity to parks and lower incidence of cardiovascular disease and premature mortality. Cross-sectional surveys and longitudinal analyses report that regular use of urban green areas correlates with reduced levels of stress, anxiety and depression, and with higher self-reported life satisfaction. Several mechanistic explanations have been proposed: exposure to vegetation reduces exposure to air pollution and noise; it provides opportunities for physical activity; and it offers restorative environments that reduce physiological markers of stress, such as cortisol levels and blood pressure. Experimental studies have shown short-term benefits after brief visits to natural settings. Evidence also suggests that different types of green infrastructure confer distinct benefits: street trees improve local air quality and thermal comfort at the micro-scale, while larger parks provide space for organised exercise and social events. Nevertheless, observational studies vary in methodology, and causality is difficult to establish conclusively because of confounding factors, including socioeconomic status and pre-existing health behaviours. Section C Access to green space is uneven within and between cities, with disadvantaged neighbourhoods frequently having less quantity and poorer quality of vegetation. This spatial inequality compounds broader health disparities, as populations with lower incomes often experience higher exposure to environmental hazards and limited access to recreational infrastructure. Several metrics have been proposed to quantify access, including per capita green area, the proportion of inhabitants living within a short walk of a public park, and measures of canopy cover. Geospatial methods such as remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) facilitate objective measurement of vegetation cover and proximity. International comparisons reveal substantial variation: some high-income cities maintain extensive canopy cover, while many rapidly growing cities in low- and middle-income countries have limited public green space per resident. Planners and public health professionals emphasise not only quantity but connectivity and perceived safety; a modest, well-maintained park close to residential areas can yield greater health benefits than a larger but inaccessible green tract. Cultural preferences and historical planning practices also shape how green space is distributed and used. Community engagement in planning and stewardship emerges as an important determinant of whether green spaces are used and valued. Section D Incorporating green infrastructure into urban planning requires interdisciplinary approaches. Practical interventions range from protecting existing natural areas to retrofitting streets with trees and creating pocket parks on vacant lots. Multifunctional designs that combine stormwater management, biodiversity habitats and recreational space are increasingly advocated to maximise co-benefits. Economic evaluations demonstrate that investment in urban green infrastructure can be cost-effective when benefits such as reduced healthcare expenditure, avoided heat-related losses and increased property values are considered. Financing mechanisms include municipal budgets, taxes, payment for ecosystem services and public–private partnerships. For example, Singapore has pursued a comprehensive greening strategy that integrates parks with transport corridors, and Copenhagen emphasises blue-green infrastructure to manage stormwater while supporting recreation. Successful examples are also observable in North American contexts, for instance where railways have been transformed into elevated parks and linear greenways, providing new recreational opportunities and stimulating local economies. Nevertheless, implementation faces challenges: land scarcity, short political cycles, maintenance funding and the potential for 'green gentrification' whereby improvements lead to rising rents and displacement. To avoid displacement, complementary policies such as affordable housing provision and rent regulation should accompany greening initiatives. Addressing these constraints requires policy instruments that link urban design, environmental management and social equity objectives, ensuring green space initiatives contribute to healthier and fairer cities.