Skip to content
A city and a national park may sound very different, but London is showing that the two could be compatible.
The UK capital became the world’s first ‘National Park City’ in 2019, supported by the mayor and 260 partner organisations.
National Park City status is not so much a recognition of achievements to date, as a signal of shared ambition to do much more. As a grassroots movement making cities “greener, healthier and wilder,” it helps citizens to connect with and value nature, just as they would by visiting a rural national park. In the UK, such parks are not “pristine wilderness,” but places where people also live and work, says Mark Cridge, who runs the National Park City scheme in London. That makes it “entirely viable” to apply the concept to urban areas too.
Although the idea first emerged in London, many others agree: Adelaide (Australia) became the second National Park City in 2021, with Breda (the Netherlands) and Chattanooga (US) set to join them next year, and several other cities hoping to follow their lead.
Beyond the green bubble
Aspiring National Park Cities need to demonstrate commitment to improving the connection between people and nature, and put forward a campaign that is inclusive, ambitious and has sufficient support. Proposals are assessed by the National Park City Foundation (also run by Cridge).
Encouraging city-dwellers to see their surroundings as a wild, living ecosystem is not just beneficial in the short term: when people experience nature in a meaningful way, they are also more likely to act in ways that benefit the Earth. “At the root of the climate and biodiversity crises is really the fact that we’ve lost our connection with nature, especially in cities,” says Cridge.
In London, National Park City status is not about preventing new construction or keeping people off certain land. Instead, it supports around 150 volunteer ‘rangers’ to connect citizens with nature. These rangers are teachers, rewilders, photographers, and specialists of many other kinds. That diversity is crucial, Cridge says.
“We’ve got to get beyond the green bubble and reach people where they currently are, whether that’s through community sport, artistic participation or other neighbourhood groups.” National Park City also works with local authorities in the city’s different boroughs to connect their residents to relevant opportunities.
For Cridge, much of this work involves telling new stories, for example with its billboard campaign celebrating London’s grassroots heroes. “[National Park City] plays a role which is joyful and celebratory, but its urgency comes from the real harms and losses that are taking place. It’s showing others that this [action] is possible, and this needs to happen.”
Next up: Johannesburg and Freetown?
London was a natural candidate for the first National Park City: it’s blessed with green space and water — together making up almost half of the city — and nearly as many trees as people. It is already a world leader in looking after its parks, which attract 47 million visitors annually.
But many other cities also see the value of National Park City status: Southampton, Glasgow, Cardiff (UK) and Rotterdam (the Netherlands) are all well into this process, with another handful following in their footsteps.
Soon, it might even break out of the “Global North bubble”, says Cridge: the foundation is speaking to interested parties in Johannesburg (South Africa) and Freetown (Sierra Leone). Translating the concept to fast-growing cities may be challenging, but worthwhile: “Ensuring the connection with nature is built into those cities as they rapidly urbanise — that’s where you get real disproportionate gain.”
The campaign hasn’t always been straightforward. Covid-19 lockdowns stalled London’s initial progress. Reaching the target of at least 25 active National Park City campaigns worldwide by the end of 2025 will require a lot of work.
Cridge highlights a few other challenges. The concept can be interpreted in different ways, which makes it appealing and relatively easy to get started, but that also means a risk of being “too fragmented or too loosely applied.”
And, in creating a new environmental charity, it has been important to complement rather than compete with existing efforts. “We talk a lot about bringing new money in, as much as possible, rather than crowding out existing, limited funding. That’s something we’ve got to be incredibly careful about,” he says.
