TOEFL統合ライティング

📖 読解文章

The expansion of urban areas into surrounding natural habitats is often justified by economic growth, but this practice has significant ecological costs. One major concern is the loss of biodiversity. When forests and wetlands are converted into residential or commercial developments, native species lose their homes, leading to population declines and even local extinctions. For example, the California gnatcatcher, a small bird species, has seen its coastal sage scrub habitat reduced by over 70% due to urban sprawl, pushing it toward endangered status. A second issue is the disruption of water cycles. Natural landscapes, such as forests and grasslands, absorb rainfall and replenish groundwater aquifers. When these areas are paved over with impermeable surfaces like concrete and asphalt, rainwater runs off quickly into storm drains, reducing groundwater recharge and increasing the risk of flooding downstream. A third problem is the urban heat island effect. Vegetation provides shade and cools the air through evapotranspiration. Removing vegetation and replacing it with heat-absorbing materials like dark roofs and roads raises local temperatures, which increases energy demand for air conditioning and contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions. While urban development is inevitable, these ecological impacts suggest that we must prioritize preserving natural habitats within and around cities.

🎧 リスニング講義

The reading raises valid concerns about urban expansion, but its arguments are oversimplified and ignore modern planning solutions. First, while habitat loss is a real issue, urban development can actually enhance biodiversity if designed correctly. For instance, green roofs, vertical gardens, and urban parks create new niches for species. In cities like Singapore, such features have increased bird and insect diversity compared to surrounding agricultural lands, which are often monocultures. The California gnatcatcher example is misleading because conservation efforts, such as habitat corridors, have successfully connected fragmented patches, allowing populations to recover in some areas. Second, the claim about water cycle disruption overlooks the implementation of permeable pavements and rain gardens. These technologies allow rainwater to infiltrate the soil, recharging aquifers just as natural surfaces do. Many new developments in Portland, Oregon, use these systems, and studies show groundwater recharge rates are comparable to pre-development conditions. Third, the urban heat island effect is not inevitable. Cities can combat this by using cool roofing materials, increasing tree canopy, and designing wind corridors. For example, Los Angeles has adopted cool roofs, reducing surface temperatures by up to 5 degrees Celsius. Moreover, high-density development reduces the per-capita energy use, since apartments require less heating and cooling than detached houses, potentially lowering overall emissions. Thus, the negative impacts described are not inherent to urban expansion but rather to poor design, which can be mitigated with foresight.