“UnbeLEAFable”: Camley Street Natural Park the exception, not the rule

Blog 1 established the impact of metabolisms infused with power relations on access to urban green space. This blog will employ UPE to analyse accessibility of green space in London focusing on Camley Street Natural Park (CSNP).

Research questions

1. What is the current spatial distribution of green space in Camden?
2. What are the socioeconomic dynamics that influence green space distribution in Camden?
3. What features define access to CSNP?

I undertook a mixed methods approach: the quantitative component reviewed green space access at borough and ward-scale, providing context to evaluate the qualitative site-scale analysis through ethnography and photographs. Gustafson’s (2021:110) UPE outlook details the ‘tremendous scope’ to enhance engagement with data. I therefore integrated data to quantify accessibility, demarcate outcomes of metabolic flows and prompt local investigation.

Quantitative research 

Quantitative analysis, in RStudio, explored the relationship between income and park access, using datasets from London Datastore and Open Data Camden.

Across boroughs, as income increases, the percentage of households with access to local parks increases (Figure 1); this could be due to power dynamics that wealthier boroughs can use to influence accessibility. For example, Kensington and Chelsea occupies the highest income and park access categories (£116,000, 84.1%), whereas Enfield is within the lowest band for both variables (£41,000, 17.9%).

Figure 1: Maps showing London boroughs with average income (as a proxy for socioeconomic status) and access to local parks (defined as percentage of households within 400m).

However, this trend is reversed for Camden wards (Figure 2). For example, Hampstead Town (£105,000, 28.7%) and Regent’s Park (£52,000, 69.6%) display a negative relationship between income and park access. Perhaps with higher incomes, green spaces have become gentrified and more exclusive. 

Figure 2: Maps showing Camden wards with average income and access to local parks through colour gradient, and the distribution of trees represented as green dots.

Qualitative research 

The qualitative research captured lenses of geographies that cannot be understood through maps alone (Figure 3). Ethnographic UPE assessed accessibility factors impacting ‘lived social practice’ (Rademacher, 2015:146) and photography captured the milieu. 

Figure 3: Questions prepared in my notebook prior to commencing fieldwork to guide observations and aid the deconstruction of the third research question.

CSNP a secluded 2-acre space, 5-minutes from King’s Cross Station, opened in 1985. Historically, the site was pasture until the 1800s when it became a coal depot for King’s Cross. The space fell into disuse in the 1960s after the 1956 Clean Air Act reduced coal demand (Living London History, 2021), and remained a contaminated landscape throughout the 1970s (Barkham, 2021). The London Wildlife Trust (2023) obtained the land to prevent future development, promoting nature colonisation (Figure 4).

Figure 4: CSNP is hidden from street view by trees on the periphery (left); an information board detailing site history (right) (photographs captured by author in November 2023).

Although the space appears natural and without human influence (Figure 5), CSNP has been consciously “produced” via convergence of the natural and unnatural over the past half-century (Figure 6). This green space provides a counter-example to London accessibility trends (Figure 1). CSNP achieved the Green Flag Award 2023/2024 for accessibility and promoting inclusion regardless of where people live (Green Flag Award, 2016). 

Figure 5: Video walking tour through the CSNP trails illustrating the socio-natural production of the space (Con Trails, 2022).

Figure 6: ‘Natural’ appearance of CSNP where vegetation, trees and ponds are left unkempt and plants spill onto dirt tracks (photographs captured by author in November 2023).

Explicit accessibility: The park is free to enter and opens daily between 10a.m.–5p.m. in summer and 10a.m.–4p.m. in winter. However, the hours potentially exclude people intending to visit before and after attending school or work. Furthermore, the site does not provide designated parking, which could restrict access beyond the immediate locale. This provides anecdotal evidence that green space benefits are impacted by socioeconomic status and proximity. 

Implicit accessibility: The perception of inclusion and safety within public space (Byrne and Wolch, 2009) can be as important as explicit accessibility. At CSNP, educational signs (Hidden London, 2023) foster a cooperative culture where expert ecosystem knowledge is not assumed or required (Figure 7). Additionally, the name “Natural Park” is significant (Zimmer et al., 2017) and intentionally signifies openness rather than “Nature Reserve” which contains exclusionary connotations (Barkham, 2021).

Figure 7: Information boards located throughout the park detailing ecosystems found in the park, for example, the “Living” bioreceptive wall (photographs captured by author in November 2023).

Human engagement: During ethnography, a range of people moved through and interacted with the space. For example, parents with their children, tourists taking photographs of Regent’s Canal and individuals wearing work attire frequenting the park during a break. The park also engages school communities, with approximately 5,000 students visiting per annum (Barkham, 2021). The circulation of people was predominantly concentrated at the café rather than throughout the trails. 

Limitations

Limitations to data inferences should be noted:

• Quantitative data does not consider the quality of green spaces (Barbosa et al., 2007). 
• Fieldwork was conducted at a single point in time and different dynamics may be present at other times.
• Green space is not homogenous; conclusions would differ at the nearby Granary Square containing artificial grass.
• Perceptions of accessibility are subjective, impacted by past experiences and specific purpose for visiting. 

This research has identified indicators that the site is inclusive and accessible.

‘The story of Camley Street Natural Park’s creation, survival and rebirth is a powerful example…[but] must become one of many, rather than the exception it is today’

(Barkham, 2021)

[747 words]

References

Barbosa, O., J.A. Tratalos, P.R. Armsworth, R.G. Davies, R.A. Fuller, P. Johnson and K.J. Gaston (2007) ‘Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 187-195. Read here.

Barkham, P. (2021) ‘How Camley Street brought nature to the heart of the capital’ (WWW), London: The Guardian. Read here.

Byrne, J. and J. Wolch (2009) ‘Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for geographic research’, Progress in Human Geography, 33, 6, 743-765. Read here.

Con Trails (2022) ‘Camley Street Natural Park | London’ (WWW). Watch here. 

Green Flag Award (2016) ‘Raising the standard – The Green Flag Award guidance manual’, report written by Katharine Ellicott. Read here.

Gustafson, S. (2021) ‘Children breathe their own air: Reflections on children’s geographies, the urban political ecology of air pollution, and ongoing participatory action research with undergraduates near an east London primary school’, Area, 53, 1, 106-113. Read here.

Hidden London (2023) ‘A walk on the wild side of Camden’ (WWW), London: Hidden London. Read here.

Living London History (2021) ‘Camley Street Natural Park: A Secret Wildlife Haven’ (WWW), London: Living London History, All posts, Hidden Gems, Parks and Gardens. Read here. 

London Datastore (2014) ‘Access to Public Open Space and Nature by Ward’ (WWW), London: Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (GiGL). Data here. 

London Datastore (2015) ‘Ward Profiles and Atlas’ (WWW), London: Greater London Authority (GLA). Data here. 

London Datastore (2021) ‘Local Authority Maintained Trees’ (WWW), London: Greater London Authority (GLA). Data here. 

London Wildlife Trust (2023) ‘Camley Street Natural Park’ (WWW), London: London Wildlife Trust. Read here. 

Open Data Camden (2022) ‘Camden Ward Boundaries’ (WWW), London: London Borough of Camden. Data here.

Rademacher, A. (2015) ‘Urban Political Ecology’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 137-152. Read here.

Zimmer, A., N. Cornea and R. Véron (2017) ‘Of parks and politics: the production of socio-nature in a Gujarati town’, Local Environment, 22, 1, 49-66. Read here.