Why Greater London should be made into an urban national park

London is 47% green space. If it became the first national park city issues such as obesity and climate change could be tackled
Battersea Park Pond
Battersea park pond: is London deserving of urban park city status? Photograph: M.Sobreira / Alamy/Alamy

Last year I visited all 15 of the UK's national parks. I explored windswept tors, hidden gorges, wild waters and enjoyed the view from the top of Britain's highest peaks. During this journey I could see something was missing: a major urban habitat.

Covering up to 7% of the UK, urban areas are recognised by Natural England as a distinct habitat, and by that definition London is truly remarkable. The population of 8.3m shares the city with 13,000 species of wildlife that inhabit the conurbation's 3,000 parks, 30,000 allotments, two national nature reserves, 36 sites of special scientific interest and 142 local nature reserves.

A massive 47% of London is green space, making it one of the greenest cities in the world for its size. It is home to the world's largest urban forest and its 3.8m gardens cover 24% of the capital.

The statutory purpose of national park status is to "conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area" and "promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the park by the public." What if we took these ideas and applied them to London? I think this would radically change how we see, think about, design, manage and experience the city.

This is not a proposal to change planning policy in the capital. A Greater London National Park would not have the additional planning powers that so many residents in current parks dislike. Nor would it replace the thousands of organisations who are already doing incredible work across the capital.

A Greater London National Park would be a new kind of park: a 'national park city' that would aim to conserve London's ability to be dynamic, to innovate and to evolve. The park's leadership role would be to inform and inspire, help coordinate and promote London's biodiversity and recreational opportunities while helping to tackle some of the city's biggest challenges.

National parks cost less than £1 per person, yet they contribute up to £6.3bn to the economy each year. Becoming an urban national park would bring new investment to Greater London, disrupting the inner city bubble and promoting opportunities in the outer boroughs.

The return on investment would go far deeper than the business opportunities. Mental health conditions cost London £26bn a year. Obesity costs £900m a year, £7m of which is spent on childhood obesity with one in five of the capital's children overweight. Being active outdoors in green space through play, walks, green gyms, adventure activities and organised sports are ideal ways to improve our collective health.

Meanwhile air quality, climate change and flooding are costly environmental issues that do not respect borough boundaries. All of these can be mitigated by a strong greening strategy that boosts natural habitats, improves biodiversity and allocates new space for growing food.

Despite its biodiversity, there is enormous potential for London to become an even better environment for wildlife. There is an incredible opportunity to harness community power to improve the quality of London's urban habitats, for example, through voluntary work or tackling littering. I can imagine a national park volunteer range scheme would be a highly popular way to give the gift of time.

London mayor Boris Johnson responded to our petition to make London a national park city by stating that although "the idea of a national park is an engaging way of sparking debate... [he] does not have the powers to create a new class of urban national park." I disagree.

To be designated as a national park by Natural England, the city would have to meet established criteria set out by 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and the 1995 Environment Act. But we are not calling for London to become a traditional national park. Doing so would devalue the importance of wilder parts of the country, which need to be thought about and managed differently.

A city like London needs to have the freedom to evolve and develop dynamically in a way that is appropriate for its own needs. That's why it should be a national park city: a new kind of national park with the same spirit and aims as the others but with its own distinct definition, classification and criteria for qualification.

We should develop a set of expertise that can be followed around the world, a new movement of urban national parks that are ready to accept urban challenges.

'National park cities' do not yet exist. There is no international agreement or legal definition that prevents London (or any other city) from becoming one. The page is blank and the opportunity is enormous – all we have to do is reach out and take it.

Daniel Raven-Ellison (@DanRavenEllison) is a founder of the Greater London National Park campaign and a National Geographic Emerging Explorer
