Nestled between a large railway station and towering developments, Camley Street Natural Park (CSNP) is a small local urban nature reserve in central London. A green space I visited alongside my peers to investigate the socio-natural processes and infrastructures in place.
For those just joining us, my previous blog discussed urban green spaces and cities as socio-natural, using Paris as an example. In this blog, we will pick up where we left off, exploring nature’s entanglement with the urban scene using ethnographic research. Focusing specifically on the representation of urban nature, which I touched upon briefly. This will unfold how both nature and society shape and reshape one another in ways we might miss.
Context:
My peers and I settled on this site due to its interesting historical transformation and geographical location. Camley Street Natural Park was not so natural back in the 1960’s. Formerly an abandoned coal drop amidst railway closures and a decline in the mining industry, the space between King’s Cross and St Pancras was spared from dereliction and industrial developments. By 1985 the site was transformed into a park thanks to the London Wildlife Trust, creating a natural reserve that supports thriving wildlife and ecosystems within the urban environment.
CNSP therefore offers an engaging analysis for UPE. Where I will be able to observe active social-natural processes and past metabolic transformations within the Park’s design and use.
Before heading in I made a mental note to consider these three research questions.
- What infrastructures are in place?
- How do people use the urban green space?
- Does the park act as a bridge between nature and the city?
Methodology:
Ethnography is a powerful observational tool for offering a more insightful understanding of authentic social and spatial realities (Holiday, 2009). This naturalistic approach comprised of open-note taking, photography and filming audio and visual observations, which I carried out on a Friday November morning. Using ethnographic research allows me to uncover the socio-natural dynamics and metabolic relations of this urban green space in more detail.
What infrastructures are in place?
Venturing into CNSP, I was immediately met with an iron gate, a café and a learning hub before I could enter the green space. There was a notable focus on educating and increasing awareness about wildlife protection, within a surprisingly modern urban environment. One could argue that a feeling of disconnection between the city and nature is physically established. It’s almost as if the nature reserve had been gentrified compared to other public parks that lack social amenities or luxuries (Anguelovski, et al. 2022).
This theme of education continues into the nature reserve with several informative signs and labels detailing the different habitats and vegetation. Perhaps processes of socio-nature participate in this sense, as the park encourages visitors to interact and connect with the natural ecosystem. This could be why the green space is so enclosed, boarded up by wooden fences on all parameters of the park. Purposefully blocking out the urban landscape, to focus on the natural.
But to what extent does this prevent physical socio-natural cohesion and metabolic interconnectedness. CNSP seemingly restricts the potential for society to reproduce itself. In other words, this limits the potential for further effective exchanges and socio-natural transformations to take place (Swyngedouw, 1996). As much as the vegetation is overgrown, nature here is static and controlled.
However, the few visitors in the actual park, appear to enjoy the reserved environment. Evidently the urban green space cultivates knowledge, improves social well-being and protects biodiversity in a London area (Jennings and Bamkole, 2019). Yet, the majority of visitors concentrate at the modern entrance with sounds of construction work resonating throughout the park, as well as some waste dotted around the manmade pathways.
The physical separation using fences and gates, seemingly preserves CNSP’s natural, unchangeable image, disregarding the fact that the nature reserve and the city are permanently intertwined.
Reflection and Limitations:
The park represented nature as something distinct and serene, rather than one coexisting with the city landscape to its full potential. Instead, a physical division exists between the two sites, benches and paths face away from city developments and the ‘natural’ park begins with modern infrastructure and capitalist exchanges. This doesn’t necessarily mean CNSP is completely disconnected from the urban scene, rather emphasises the opposite, but quite harshly. Perhaps CNSP could continue its metabolic transformation, integrating the park and the urban with more sensitivity and connection to effectively thread the two different processes.
If I were to conduct this research again, I would include more interviews with the park visitors to gain a more detailed understanding of how the space is used. Since my focus is on nature’s representation in an urban setting, I must consider that my findings may vary over time. Therefore, I’d plan to repeat the research on various days at the same time to accurately identify patterns and ensure reliable results, or perhaps notice what is missing to gain a deeper insight (Khan, 2018).
I hope that during your next park visit, you’ll take a moment to recognise how inseparable the city is to the green space. Ethnographic research is open to everyone. Let me know how you would investigate your local parks!
References:
Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J.T., Cole, H. et al. (2022) Green gentrification in European and North American cities. Nat Commun 13, 3816 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31572-1
Holliday, A. (2009). Doing and writing qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage.
Jennings, V. and Bamkole. O. (2019) The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An avenue for health promotion. National Library of Medicine
Khan, M.H. (2018) Ethnography: An Analysis of its Advantages and Disadvantages. SSRN
Swyngedouw, E. (1996) “Urban political ecology, Justice and the Politics of Scale”. Antipode. 28(2), pp.134-158
City in Nature 
Leave a comment