While stationed at the heart of the metro, it becomes difficult not to envision oneself escaping the hustle and bustle of a frenetic city, surrounded instead by lush greenery or a balmy seashore on a soothing tropical retreat. This recreational reverie is common among cityfolk for a reason: it is in this innate desire to flee our urban jungles that our bodies signal their crucial need to regulate, a symptom of a larger urban-caused malady.
Log-ging off our lifeline
Acclaimed psychoanalyst Erich Fromm introduced the theory of “Biophilia” in 1964. Directly translating to “love of life,” the term describes the biologically driven inclination to be close to nature and other forms of life. This inherent predisposition to seek out the natural environment is etched into the body’s genetic makeup, precipitating bouts of subconscious despondency if left unfulfilled.
The nation’s growing mental health crisis is exacerbated by the suffocating panorama of a verdureless cityscape. Beyond the visual appeal of greenery, this evolutionary penchant for nature activates a form of cognitive restoration, leading individuals to experience reduced stress and improved moods when exposed to green spaces. Our grey-laden metropolis, littered with rubbish and smoke-filled streets, arguably negates this ancestral code to revitalization.
But drawing vitality from these natural sources becomes increasingly difficult to achieve alongside accelerating urbanization, as large corporations—accompanied by support from the national government—ravage through existing forests and greenfields, bulldozing massive tree groves and growing flora.
In late May, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources approved an outrageous permit that allowed tree-cutting operations for the upcoming San Miguel Corporation (SMC)-led Southern Access Link Expressway Project to fell all 617 trees along Quirino Avenue in Malate, Manila.
The mass tree felling sparked widespread public outrage, as residents of Manila grieved the loss of the area’s beneficial canopy and now face an ecological dilemma as intensifying heat, worsening air pollution, and rising vulnerability to flood risks threaten the welfare and living conditions of nearby citizens.
We should touch grass, literally
The removal of trees along Quirino Avenue, justified as a sacrifice to supposedly improve traffic flow and offset by SMC’s promise to replant 50,700 seedlings, is more than just an issue of urban planning. It reflects a deeper misunderstanding of how essential green spaces are to human well-being and the flawed assumption that newly planted seedlings easily replace decades-old trees and their ecological impact.
In recent years, multidisciplinary research has increasingly supported the concept of biophilia. The often dismissed and joked-about advice of “touching grass” is, in reality, backed by scientific evidence.
Evolutionary biologist Bjørn Grinde and Dean Grete Grindal Patil of the Faculty of Landscape and Design at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences argue that even passive exposure to greenery, such as simply seeing trees outside your window or walking through parks, can positively affect both physical and psychological health. In contrast, a lack of greenery is often associated with increased stress and mental fatigue.
This connection becomes especially significant in densely populated urban areas like Manila, where residents are constantly exposed to traffic congestion, noise pollution, overcrowding, and the urban heat island effect.
American environmental psychologists Judith Heerwagen and Betsy Hase highlight that biophilic design in urban spaces is not just an architectural aesthetic, but also functional in improving productivity, lowering stress, and enhancing emotional health.
Similarly, Clemens Arvay, an Austrian biologist specializing in health ecology, argues that contact with green environments can strengthen immune responses, improve mood, and support long-term mental wellness. His discussion reinforces the growing understanding that natural spaces should not be luxuries in cities but a necessity for public health.
Toward a livable, greener Philippines
Globally, countries have already recognized the relationship between exposure to nature and improved quality of life, leading them to actively integrate nature into urban planning. Singapore, hailed as a “City in Nature,” intentionally incorporates parks, roadside trees, and vertical gardens into infrastructure. Other countries and cities have similarly invested in accessible green spaces due to the health and environmental benefits they provide.
Against this backdrop, the tree felling along Quirino Avenue becomes more than a localized environmental issue. These decade-old roadside trees not only served as a hallmark of the thoroughfare but also supplied vital services for residents, providing shade amid the sweltering heat, acting as natural air filters, and alleviating flooding in the area.
In a city where accessible parks and green public spaces are limited, the loss of roadside trees to an expressway of concrete and automobile noise contributes to a more hostile and psychologically exhausting environment.
The controversy surrounding Quirino Avenue is just one of many examples of the neglect and destruction of green spaces in Metro Manila and across the country. As we continue to urbanize, will the government and corporations continue to prioritize infrastructure over protecting environmental conditions that allow people to live healthier and more humane lives?
Progress should not be measured solely by the number of completed projects, but also by how livable cities are for the people within them. If we continue to treat green spaces as expendable, cities risk becoming not only hotter and more polluted but increasingly harmful to public well-being. Protecting nature does not hinder progress—it is essential to it.
This article was published in The LaSallian’s June 2026 issue. To read more, visit bit.ly/TLSJune2026.
