Inside the Push to Make London a National Park

Map courtesy of the Greater London National Park*. Maps displays GiGL data 2014. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright and database right 2014.

To end National Park Week, we interviewed Daniel Raven-Ellison, a National Geographic Emerging Explorer. He has recently started a campaign to make the greater London area into a national park. According to him, the Greater London National Park is officially a "notional park." You can follow Daniel and the Greater London National Park on Twitter at @LondonNP.

What inspired you to promote the making of London as a national park?

Last year I visited all of the United Kingdom's beautiful National Parks. They are all important in their own right and include a wide range of habitats. From the moorlands of Dartmoor in the south of England to the peaks of the Cairngorm Mountains in Scotland, most major habitats are represented except one... a major urban habitat. 

Urban areas cover 7% of the UK and so with 15 National Parks I think it makes sense for the next one to be a major city. It is not just a point of representation. 80% of British people live in urban areas and it is in these places where we have to work most to develop a new kind of relationship with nature. 

Are there any precedents for turning such a vast, urban area into a park?

Around the world there are National Parks inside and beside cities, there are also villages and small towns inside National Parks... but no... there are not any National Parks that encompass an entire city the size of London. To put it into context, at 1,572 km² in area London would be the UK's 7th largest National Park. 

What makes London the perfect city to be turned into a national park?

Let me give you some numbers.

1,572 km² in area

7th largest National Park* in the UK

300 languages spoken

8.3 million people

152 miles – London’s orbital footpath which is longer than most national trails

13,000 species of wildlife

13 species of reptile and amphibian within the M25

3.8 million gardens

2 Special Protection Areas

3 Special Areas of Conservation

4 UNESCO World Heritage Sites

2 National Nature Reserves

36 Sites of Special Scientific Interest

142 Local Nature Reserves

1300 sites are recognised by the GLA as being of value to wildlife

30,000 allotments

3000 parks

Lots of cats and dogs

And according to GiGL’s Greenspace Information for Greater London, 2013 (http://www.gigl.org.uk/our-data-holdings/keyfigures/):

60% is open and undeveloped land

47% green space

24% domestic gardens

22% Green Belt

6% sports areas

2.5% river, canals and reservoirs

I think these are some excellent statistics, but in reality I can see many other cities being great National Park Cities too.

 

Would purpose would the creation of the Greater London National Park serve?

In the UK the purpose of a National Park is to

• conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and
• promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the public. 

I think these aims can fit a city just as well as a more remote and rural location. I am not calling for London to share the same definition as the current countryside National Parks, instead I would like to see it named as an Urban National Park or a National Park City. This is for a couple of different reasons.

Firstly, I don't want to undermine the importance of our wildest places. Cities are different and they should be treated differently.

Secondly, smart National Park Cities should be allowed to develop, evolve and be dynamic. I would like to see an Urban National Park inspire, inform and co-ordinate practice but not adding a new layer to planning permissions for developments.

 

How do you see the urban setting of London playing into the national park?

This is a great question. One of the key purposes of National Parks is inspire people to enjoy them through recreation. Urban habitats provide different but no fewer opportunities to explore than more remote and rural locations. In London we have woods, hills, canals and rivers to walk, run, cycle and kayak down, but we also have an incredible and iconic urban landscape to enjoy too. An important point to reflect on here is inclusion, access and accessibility. More people can access more of London than many more challenging and wild environments. Cities like London do not offer the same qualities as isolated and sparse locations, but they do still deliver exciting opportunities for people to learn, be active and enjoy themselves.

 

What, if any, role will London's rich history play in the proposed national park?

London has constantly evolved, and developed in a dynamic way. People have been visiting London's site for over 100,000 years, the city was founded by the Romans 2000 years ago and you can visit four World Heritage Sites without leaving town. London has played a leading role in the development of democracy, new technologies and ideas. The city has a rich natural history too. It is this blend that I think makes London an excellent candidate. 

Are there any other cities that you believe could be turned into national parks?

Yes, there are hundreds of them. There is nothing exclusive about this idea.

 

What are some other cities that you think could be turned into national parks?

Let me ask you a different question. Which of your county's cities do you think could be your country's first National Park City? 

What can we do to join in your efforts?

No matter where you are in the world you can help to support this idea. Visit our site http://www.greaterlondonnationalpark.org.uk/ sign our petition to the Mayor of London http://www.greaterlondonnationalpark.org.uk/get-involved/help/ and if you are a teacher, enter the student challenge http://www.greaterlondonnationalpark.org.uk/get-involved/student-challenge/. 

The only way an idea like this will ever happen is if it gets support, so please do click through a help to make it happen http://www.greaterlondonnationalpark.org.uk/get-involved/help/ .