Single correct option
Urban planners have increasingly turned to pocket parks — small, often leftover plots converted into green space — as a low-cost alternative to large public parks in dense cities where land is scarce and expensive. While a pocket park cannot replicate the recreational range of a large park, research suggests that even brief exposure to small patches of greenery measurably reduces reported stress among nearby residents, and that the benefit scales more with proximity and frequency of use than with the park's size. This has led some planners to argue that a scattered network of small green spaces may do more for everyday well-being than a single large park located far from most residents.
- A. Large parks are becoming obsolete and should be replaced by pocket parks everywhere.
- B. A network of small, nearby green spaces may deliver more everyday well-being benefit than one large, distant park, because proximity and frequency matter more than size.
- C. Pocket parks are cheaper to build than large parks but provide no measurable benefit.
- D. Stress reduction from green space depends entirely on park size.
Show answer and solution
Answer: (B) A network of small, nearby green spaces may deliver more everyday well-being benefit than one large, distant park, because proximity and frequency matter more than size.
The paragraph's key claim is that benefit 'scales more with proximity and frequency of use than with the park's size,' leading planners to favour a scattered network over one large distant park — matching option B. A overreaches ('obsolete... everywhere'); C and D contradict the passage's actual findings.
Saved on this device. Sign in or create a free account to keep it on every device.