## 4 Discussion
### Practical Implications: Social, Environmental, and Economic Benefits  
The results of this work show opportunities to improve people's quality of life, reduce environmental damage, and bring economic development by the provision of ecological functions. The increment of 51% in new green areas reduces 51% of harmful hydrological events, air pollution, and greenhouse gases. This is also confirmed by the avoided emission highlighted by the LCA analysis.  
Greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants are harmful to crops' productivity, human health, and, consequently, the economy [72]. Air pollutants are responsible for pulmonary diseases, cancer, and respiratory infections, increasing death rates [73] and public health costs. Additionally, the O\({}_{3}\) exposure reduces plant transpiration and heat fluxes, diminishing rainfall and increasing air temperature. All these factors negatively impact the crop yield, from 18% to 45%, representing approximately 35% of loss related to gross primary productivity (GPP) [74].  
_\"The interaction with nature is a fundamental pillar for individuals' wellbeing, regardless of their geographical, cultural, or socioeconomic background\"._[24]  
Many city residents have no daily contact with local nature and biodiversity, which also impacts individual wellbeing. Different studies show the health benefits of living nearby green areas, improving human wellbeing by reducing blood pressure, heart rate, and muscle tension [75; 76]. Unfortunately, too many individuals are far from natural areas in their daily life, and this distance might impact their perception of natural environments and local biodiversity. However, it is also possible to notice that personal perceptions are affected by social, cultural, and psychological backgrounds that should be addressed and investigated in local communities.  
The _New York Times_ newspaper, on 21 September 1966, reported the former US President [PERSON]'s words talking about trees as sources of raw materials: \"A tree's a tree. How many more redwoods do you need to look at? If you've seen one, you've seen them all\". In 1973, [PERSON] published an article in _Nature_ questioning the utility of urban trees: the use of plastic trees could replicate the recreational and shading functions of natural ones; he argued that the definition of natural environment depends on culture and society, and that \"preservationism\" is more expensive than pragmatic conservationism [77]. The argument resurfaced in 2007 when the journal _Nature_ published a blog post discussing [PERSON]'s idea, concluding that living in a Disneyfied world costs more than the direct monetary value of fake wilderness, being the actual cost is the loss of ecosystem value [78].  
Nature and urban green spaces as elements of the urban landscape are fundamental to improving the quality of life of citizens. Therefore, they must be considered in urban planning policies to reflect the needs, economic possibilities, and customs of the city's inhabitants. It is, in any case, an interpretation that takes its inspiration from the hope that biopolititics can have the possibility of winning against biopower [79].  
Urban nature is vital in all its manifestations, from private gardens, tree plantations, and city parks to land used for recreational purposes within or nearby the city.