Green spaces in housing developments are areas designated for parks and natural landscapes to enhance residents' quality of life and environmental health. Proponents argue that it enhances community well-being and environmental quality. Opponents argue that it increases the cost of housing and developers should decide the layout of their projects.
Response rates from 3k Australia voters.
92% Yes |
8% No |
92% Yes |
8% No |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 3k Australia voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 3k Australia voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Australia voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@B4SJGL43mos3MO
Yes, but mandated spaces should instead be wildlife corridors and undeveloped land, in order to facilitate native life
@B4RNT9C3mos3MO
Yes, but residential allotments should be large enough to allow for yard space as well instead of putting profits above livability by cramming as many allotments in as they can at a premium price.
@B4GTKPN3mos3MO
Studies show human beings benefit greatly from being around nature immediately and in the long term. It is a balance between practicality and finances but yes, when applicable they should.
@B3ZGKXZ4mos4MO
No, new developments should be required to contribute financially to road infrastructure projects that support the increased traffic.
@B3CKLNK4mos4MO
Yes, but only if there is no green spaces nearby, their doesn't need to be a park and/or oval in every housing estate
@B32D8FK5mos5MO
They should also provide enough space for passive solar design, to make it possible to build sustainable houses.
@9SYC4SQ10mos10MO
PUBLIC (government-funded and community-built) HOUSING ONLY. ABOLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY (private development for houses is now just another investment, housing is no longer treated as a vital human right).
@9SWQZYB10mos10MO
No, incentivise high density living and protect existing nature instead
Join in on the most popular conversations.
