Urban Green Spaces and Temperature Regulation Hypotheses

Very Hard Conflicting Viewpoints Comparing Hypotheses

Researchers are investigating two hypotheses regarding the impact of urban green spaces on local temperature regulation. The first hypothesis (Hypothesis A) posits that increased vegetation in urbanized areas leads to a measurable decrease in the local urban heat island effect, thus reducing ambient air temperatures. Proponents of Hypothesis A argue that trees and green roofs can mitigate heat by providing shade and through the process of evapotranspiration.

The second hypothesis (Hypothesis B) suggests that while green spaces may provide some cooling effects, they could also exacerbate temperature variations by trapping heat and reducing airflow in densely built environments. Advocates of Hypothesis B point out that the materials used in landscaping, such as pavement and concrete surrounding green areas, might lead to localized warming.

Given the conflicting viewpoints presented by these two hypotheses, which of the following statements best summarizes the primary distinction between them?

Hypothesis A advocates for more urban greenery to combat heat, while Hypothesis B emphasizes the need for open spaces to ensure airflow.

Hypothesis A believes that green spaces universally lower temperatures, whereas Hypothesis B suggests they can lead to localized warming under certain conditions.

Both hypotheses agree on the cooling effects of vegetation but disagree on the types of plants that should be used.

Hypothesis A ignores the role of human activities in urban heat regulation, while Hypothesis B considers human influence as paramount.

Hint

Submitted4.0K

Correct3.5K

% Correct87%