What would be the consequences of removing the green belts to build houses and markets
Answers
The opportunity cost of the green belt is a lack of developable land, resulting in less homes being built and higher prices. ... Furthermore, the cost of forcing development on to urban sites is that cities lose public land used locally or gardens which typically have higher bio-diversity levels than green belt land.
Answer:
Green Belt policy aims to prevent the urban sprawl which is reducing quality of life in so many cities across the world. This unsustainable form of development swallows up farmland and wildlife habitats while increasing air pollution, flood risk and car dependency
Explanation:
greenbelt does not extend indefinitely outside a city, it spurs the growth of areas much further away from the city core than if it had not existed, thereby actually increasing urban sprawl.[12] Examples commonly cited are the Ottawa suburbs of Kanata and Orleans, both of which are outside the city's greenbelt, and are currently undergoing explosive growth (see Greenbelt (Ottawa)). This leads to other problems, as residents of these areas have a longer commute to work places in the city and worse access to public transport. It also means people have to commute through the green belt, an area not designed to cope with high levels of transportation. Not only is the merit of a green belt subverted, but the green belt may heighten the problem and make the city unsustainable.
There are many examples whereby the actual effect of green belts is to act as a land reserve for future freeways and other highways. Examples include sections of the 407 highway north of Toronto and the Hunt Club Rd./Richmond Rd. south of Ottawa. Whether they are originally planned as such, or the result of a newer administration taking advantage of land that was left available by its predecessors is debatable.
HOPW IT HELPS THANK YOU !!
plzz mark brainliest!!XD:)