Protecting green space is a pro-human policy

The argument over the destruction of the Roseburn Path in Edinburgh reflect a problem Britain has faced for many years – the demands of developers constantly reduce shared and public spaces, and it is very difficult to reverse this one spaces are lost. There is a failure to understand how important this is.

Roseburn Path in Edinburgh's West End is a defunct railway line that has been converted to a walking and cycling path. It is one of a number of similar paths in Edinburgh and each is popular, busy and creates a 'village-like' atmosphere in the urban centre.

But Edinburgh City Council appears to want to bulldozer much of the path so that it can extend the city's tram network. That this is the loss of a very significant natural asset is not in question; this is a simple matter of cost savings, with the alternative routes all costing more to develop. No-one is claiming this loss of environment is desirable, just cost-effective.

The problem is that there is and will always be a more 'cost-effective' way to use green space in an urban setting. Princes Street Gardens or Kelvingrove Park or Duthie Park would be more valuable as a housing estate than they are as public gardens. Developed land for sale makes more cash than open land for wellbeing – because no-one prices human wellbeing.

The impact of this is relentless. Yes, Edinburgh is Britain's greenest city, but it has been de-greened consistently for years. Between 1990 and 2015, Edinburgh lost 11 hectares of land to development every year. That does not include the other loss of greenery in the city – paving over of private gardens.

And this is a very widespread problem. All over Scotland the loss of playing fields, common good land and greenbelt have reduced public access to green space. There are few if any commercial lobbyists seeking to protect green space but there are armies of them seeking to grant development rights to existing green space.

This is desperately shortsighted. Once green space is lost it is almost never restored. There have been a range of creative approaches to restoring greenery to cities but it has mostly meant small-scale planting, for example planting on the roofs of bus shelters. This is great for biodiversity and supports bird and insect life and it does have a positive psychological effect on residents.

But you cannot go for a walk on the roof of a bus shelter and this is the most important aspect of green spaces for humans – the chance to be surrounded by green is better than nothing but the chance of being in dedicated green space is what makes the real difference. And those new green spaces people can walk in are almost always the use of unique and non-replicable circumstances (like the New York High Line).

Green spaces do make a difference; the benefits to physical and mental health are numerous, well researched, well understood and not in doubt. They cannot properly be replicated in other ways. Once one generation makes a decision to remove green space, it harms mental health and wellbeing for every generation to come.

There is far too much weight placed on 'the economy' as the primary driver of wellbeing, and far too much correlation between 'economy' and 'profit'. Is developing public land for private profit really in the wider good over all? Certainly losing green space is bitterly opposed by the public and that is not for no reason.

It seems likely the Roseburn Path is likely be saved because of the socioeconomic profile of those in the surrounding area. It is for this same reason that St Fitticks Park will probably be taken away from the people of Torry and given to oil investors instead.

The solutions to this are always unique because the geography of each urban space is unique. In this case it is difficult to see why so much disruption is necessary when alternative transport options are available.

But Scotland must be much more vigilant in protecting urban green space. We have lost too much and it is rare to plan proper, useable green space into new urban developments. This risks creating a concrete dystopia for future generations. The interests of planners and developers should not come first.