Until recently it has been a given that our green belts are where city dwellers go to walk, run, cycle or simply be closer to nature. Any open spaces within our cities, whether brownfield or greenfield sites, have become prime candidates for building developments, both residential and commercial.

The commonly accepted wisdom is that the green belts encircling our cities are public assets which require protection at any cost.

However, there is a growing body of opinion that:

• Our green belts are not the public assets they are made out to be.
• Urban populations would benefit from more, not less, open green space within towns and cities.

While it is worth recognising that providing public access was never the main reason for establishing green belts, it is one of the key arguments used by those who want to retain the status quo. However, it is a flawed argument.

To be true public assets, they must be accessible to all people living in towns and cities. Surveys show that this is not the case.

The reality is that nearly 80% of green belt land is inaccessible because:

• 65% is monocultural agricultural land with limited rights of way.
• 12% is privately owned forestry and woodland.
• 7% of green belt land consists of privately owned golf courses.

It is also questionable whether the remaining 20% is as accessible as we might think. Accessibility is not solely dependent on whether sites are technically open to the public. Other factors must be considered:

• 33% of urban households have no car, which limits ease of access to sites outside the city (Gov.uk).
• Sites may not be close to public transport networks.
• The cost of travel may deter lower-income households.
• The inconvenience of travelling to distant sites may discourage visits.
• There may be lower levels of public awareness of recreational opportunities available.

There is no reason why, with careful management, nature cannot be protected within urban areas — and even thrive.

Urban green spaces could include existing brownfield sites, local parks, or new linear parks created along canals or disused railways. Wildlife corridors could link large parks and open spaces together, or new ones could be created where major residential developments are taking place (see Image 2).

Urban sites are more likely to be:

• Close to large numbers of people.
• Accessible and easy to reach.
• Inclusive for all social groups.
• Familiar to local residents and therefore more frequently used.

The COVID-19 lockdowns highlighted particular problems for city dwellers, many of whom live in apartment blocks with little or no access to gardens. This had a measurable impact on mental wellbeing.

Where they exist, urban open spaces facilitate a wide range of opportunities for local people:

• Providing access to green spaces as havens for enjoying nature.
• Hiking, running and cycling.
• Water sports.
• Cultural events.
• The creation of small local wildlife reserves.

Taken in conjunction with other initiatives such as tree planting in urban neighbourhoods, roof gardens, green roofing and the creation of small, localised wildlife sites and reserves, they could:

• Reduce temperatures and create more shaded areas in towns and cities.
• Restrict run-off and reduce urban flood hazards.
• Increase biodiversity and bring nature closer to people.
• Improve the health of urban households by reducing air pollution and encouraging active lifestyles.
• Contribute to improved levels of wellbeing.
• Make cities more attractive places to live.
• Reduce car-borne traffic travelling from cities to rural areas, cutting pollution.
• Reduce pressure on honeypot areas within green belts.

A key concern is that opening up new urban green spaces generates its own set of problems.

Upgrading the urban environment around these parks can make surrounding areas more attractive places to live. This may trigger a cycle of gentrification, rising housing costs and the possible exclusion of lower-income groups.

In order to remain attractive, parks require consistent maintenance, which can create financial pressures for already cash-strapped local authorities.

They also require effective policing to ensure personal safety and security and to reduce anti-social behaviour.

The temptation to build over all remaining brownfield sites in our towns and cities to protect the “green belt” should be avoided.

Over 85% of England’s population live in urban areas. They have the same right to access green spaces for recreation and to enjoy being closer to nature nearby as suburban and rural households — without having to travel significant distances.

The creation of additional high-quality green space in towns and cities will require considerable financial commitment from central and local government. However, the long-term benefits are likely to outweigh the short-term costs. Our towns and cities could become not only more attractive places to live, but also more environmentally sustainable.

Image 2 is reproduced under licence: CC BY 4.0.
Author: Eleyna Zaykova (January 2021).
E3S Web of Conferences 263: 05037.
DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202126305037.

• The Green Belt: A Place for Londoners? (2015) Barney’s Blog.
• Green Infrastructure: Delivering Quality of Life and Environmental Benefits for Communities. Gov.uk. David Drake, Director, People & Nature at Natural England.
• Nature Restoration Technologies as a Tool for Urbanisation Management. ResearchGate.
• Linear Parks: Their Importance and Maintenance Considerations.
• Linear Parks: A Linear Path to Greener Cities.
• London Greenground Map. https://helenilus.com/portfolio/greenground-map-digital-map/