The UK carries an appetising similarity with the land in Moana– we are also an island nation with lush natural environments that should inspire the next generation of wayfinders. The goddess of nature, Te Fiti in Moana, is ever present in the rich natural urban and rural spaces that enrich the physical, social, and cognitive health needs of its inhabitants.

Building connection with and deriving benefits from the landscape and the wild spaces of Britain of course requires access. ‘Right to roam’ is a term that refers to the principle of having the right to walk over and generally extended access to uncultivated open country that may be privately owned (Pearlman Hougie and Dickinson, 2000). But what may sound appealing in principle may not be entirely fair in practice. A right to roam clashes with the right of landowners to their exclusive right to their owned land. Engagement with nature may inspire better connection of the communities with their green spaces but anti-social or otherwise irresponsible behaviour runs the risk of dampening any conservationist efforts. 

The Legal: Interest in having access to the British countryside grew in the 1930s (The Countryside Charity, 2019). Environmentalists, naturalists, and others felt strongly about both protecting the British countryside from urban development, as well as increasing access to the green spaces for the general members of the public. The landmark legislation that enshrined in the law both access to natural spaces as well as their safeguarding was the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (UK Government, 2019) . The post-war generation realised the value of green spaces to the public for improving mental and physical health and building a healthy society (Ladha, 2024). This Act protected landscapes as well as areas designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). The legislation specifically “makes provision for National Parks and the establishment of a National Parks Commission” as well as making “further provision for the recording, creation, maintenance, and improvement of public paths and for securing access to open country.” It is therefore worth noting that the 1949 Act provided limited public access to the land that it covered. Some of the focus was on conservation of land otherwise privately owned therefore without any statutory right to access by the public.

The expansion of the public’s access to the land came in the form of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, or the CRoW 2000 Act (UK Government, 2020). This Act truly expanded on the 1949 Act and this time providing public access to the uncultivated open country land (mountains, moors, heaths, down and common). The 2000 Act permits the public to walk, run, climb, sight-see, and bird-watch on the open access land however forbids activities such as horse-riding, any commercial activities, and camping. Damaging the land or any wild- or plant-life, or littering are of course not tolerated. 

Scotland went furthest in the UK introducing the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 providing a statutory right of access across all uncultivated land and waterways, excluding gardens and other exceptions (Evans, 2023). The responsible use of the land element asks that visitors ‘leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but photos’ (Land for the Many, 2019). In this way, respectful use of the land is expected of all. This Act permits access for recreational (hiking, picnics, canoeing, etc), educational (learning about wildlife, field surveys, and so on), and limited commercial activities that consist of qualifying recreational activities, such as paid-for guided hiking tours (De Sailly, Hepburn and Lean, 2024). In this way, the Scottish version of the Right to Roam fosters a much more expansive opportunity for the public to more intimately engage with the land and connect with their green spaces.

The CRoW 2000 Act nevertheless allows the English and Welsh public to spend time out in the natural countryside even when the land is privately owned, provided the public keeps a distance from the private abode of the landowners (20 metres away from any dwelling or building hosting livestock), respects the environment, and acts with care and responsibility. This CRoW 2000 Act offers England and Wales a right to roam but only provides access to 8 percent of the land in England, with the rest inaccessible without landowner permission (Horton, May 2025). The Act also does not include access to woodlands or rivers, and strictly applies to the “open country” (Earle, 2024). 

A legal framework for wider public access to open access land in England that follows the Scottish model would provide the public the statutory right and therefore a stronger confidence to venture out and explore the natural spaces on their doorstep, without the fear of trespassing (a civil offense) (Right to Roam, 2021). This however clashes with the rights of the landowners who having bought/inherited the land would want to control access to their space.

The social: According to Natural England (2014), the CRoW 2000 Act safeguards the interests of the natural environment as well as the landowners and farmers. This is in the form of outlawing littering, any intentional damage to the plant or wildlife, lighting a fire, or driving a vehicle (except mobility scooters and powered wheelchairs) over it. Furthermore, the public must not disturb any livestock on the premises. The public is also not allowed to damage anything else on the land such as crops, hedges, or gates, and must not leave any gates open that are not already propped open.

The Tuley vs Highland Council [2009] CSIH 31A case exemplifies the courts upholding landowner rights (Shepherd and Wedderburn, 2009). Mr and Mrs Tuley’s decision to padlock a red path to prevent equestrians from access despite the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 was supported by the courts after an appeal and an expert witness- a soil scientist. In addition to the bridle path, to allow horse traffic through the red path ran the risk of damaging the integrity of the path over time and therefore rendering it unusable by pedestrians. The court recognised that the intention was not to deter access but to safeguard the long-term health of the land itself and therefore the courts ruled in favour of the landowners. In this way, the needs of the public to have access to the natural environment is balanced with rules that ensure not to compromise the rights and interests of land-owning farmers and residents, or that of the land itself. 

Aside from the mental health benefits of being in natural spaces, they also encourage physical exercise and active travel that has positive impacts on the physical health of the public (Natural England, July 2025). It is telling enough that the same government that created the NHS also enacted the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (Ladha, 2024). Access to green spaces correlates with higher standards in public health and quality of life as well. Spending time in Nature enriches both the mind and body, and is associated with lower probabilities of cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, asthma, and mental distress (Ares et al., 2023). It would therefore not be scandalous to argue that increased access to open countryside in England is also likely to benefit the public health of the nation, and therefore help save the NHS money in the medium- to long-term, and with a healthier population, prove to be of economic benefit as well.

The philosophical: The Labour Party commissioned an independent report Land for the Many: Changing the way our fundamental asset is used, owned and governed to study the ways in which land in the UK is owned and governed. One of the things argued in the report is that having physical access to land “enhances our sense of belonging, allowing us to feel that we are no longer trespassers in our own nation, but active citizens with a stake in the national project” (Land for the Many, 2019).

This is an argument that is arguably poetic and therefore ethereal in nature but nevertheless very material and literal in terms of the demands it makes and what it speaks of the land calling to the inhabitants of the UK. A right to roam that is legally founded and safeguarded would hold symbolic value in a world of non-equal distribution of wealth and resources including land (Brinkmann, 2022). It would afford equality in accruing at least the non-monetary benefits of existing and spending time in wild, natural spaces, irrespective of whether one owns that land or not. 

It is true that having a legal control of the land is precisely what allowed landowners to innovate and improve agricultural efficiency (Evans, 2023), and such control would allow them to controllably improve the biodiversity and provide effective stewardship of the land. However, this is not something that would be prevented by any legislation providing a right to roam to the UK public. The landowners are free to use the land however they wish to at all times, whether they want to turn it into a field or a golf course, provided the land is not within a designated National Park, AONB, or nature reserve established under the 1949 Act, where stricter planning and conservation controls apply (Brinkmann, 2022). 

Additionally, the notion that owning a land ought to provide landowners the right to exclude others from their land is a moral consideration of importance. It is the sense of diminished power to control something that one legally owns that is expectedly unpopular with landowners (Brinkmann, 2022). However, in a world of socioeconomic inequality, any legislation towards providing the public the right to roam supports the philosophical right of man to connect with the earth that sustains them. It is a legislation that would arguably correct some of the deep-rooted inequality in society which means that large swathes of UK land is out of reach to the majority of the nation’s public. This legislation would tie in with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 10 of reducing inequality and overall emphasize the moral claim that a people ought to have on their own land, for recreational and educational purposes, that does not take anything fiscal away from the landowner, or indeed from the land itself. 

By comparison, the right to roam in the Swedish model, called allesmansrätten, is seen as a common right predating the legal system. It is built on the philosophy that everyone, citizens and tourists, have the right to explore the different parts of the country (El Hawary, 2023). It is a uniquely broad and far ranging legal right that encourages a coexistence of humans with each other, and species of the wild. The only thing the roamers are expected to pay is respect and care towards the natural environment and the interests of the wildlife and landowners. Otherwise, people are free to walk, picnic, pick berries, to camp and build campfires, and lots more. 

In his Guide to the Lakes, renowned poet William Wordsworth described the Lake District in 1810 as “a sort of national property in which every man has a right and interest, who has an eye to perceive and a heart to enjoy” (The Countryside Charity, 2019). Any attempt at decoupling the philosophical value of the natural environment to our very material access to it would be naive at best. A right to roam would benefit UK public health, enrich the minds and creative spirits, and ultimately connect us all better to our nation’s natural capital. This is all the more imperative at a time when natural health and biodiversity is at a decline (National Biodiversity Network, 2023). We cannot protect what we do not understand. Ultimately, over a hundred years of campaigning and advocacy for greater rights to roam the UK itself serves as the biggest proof of land calling.

References

1. Ares, E., Rough, E., Sutherland, N. and Bolton, P. (2023). Debate on public access to nature. [online] House of Commons Library. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0107/ [Accessed 31 Aug. 2025].
2. Brinkmann, M. (2022). Freedom to Roam. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 21(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v21i2.1365.
3. De Sailly, E., Hepburn, S. and Lean, H. (2024). The right to roam: Know your rights and responsibilities. [online] Shepwedd.com. Available at: https://shepwedd.com/knowledge/right-roam-know-your-rights-and-responsibilities [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
4. Earle, E. (2024). An English right to roam? [online] Farrer & Co LLP. Available at: https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/an-english-right-to-roam/ [Accessed 28 Aug. 2025].
5. El Hawary, N. (2023). Another Simply Wonderful Nordic Concept: Sweden’s Allemansrätten​ – Release Peace. [online] Releasepeace.org. Available at: https://releasepeace.org/another-simply-wonderful-nordic-concept-swedens-allemansratten/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2025].
6. Evans, R. (2023). The Right to Roam: Balancing landowners’ interests and public access. [online] Clarke Willmott LLP. Available at: https://www.clarkewillmott.com/insights/the-right-to-roam/.
7. Horton, H. (2025). Labour MPs press for right to roam policy in England after supreme court ruling. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/24/labour-mps-press-for-right-to-roam-policy-in-england-after-supreme-court-ruling [Accessed 31 Aug. 2025].
8. Ladha, N. (2024). 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act – a reflection from Navroza Ladha. [online] Blog.gov.uk. Available at: https://naturalengland.blog.gov.uk/2024/12/06/1949-national-parks-and-access-to-the-countryside-act-a-reflection-from-navroza-ladha/.
9. Land for the Many. (2019). 7. The Fortifying Commons: access and recreation – Land for the Many. [online] Available at: https://landforthemany.uk/7-the-fortifying-commons-access-and-recreation/ [Accessed 30 Aug. 2025].
10. National Biodiversity Network (2023). State of Nature 2023. [online] National Biodiversity Network. Available at: https://nbn.org.uk/news/state-of-nature-2023/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2025].
11. Natural England (2014). Open Access land: management, Rights and Responsibilities. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-access-land-management-rights-and-responsibilities [Accessed 31 Aug. 2025].
12. Natural England (2025). Natural England promotes outdoor healthcare in Sussex. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/natural-england-promotes-outdoor-healthcare-in-sussex [Accessed 31 Aug. 2025].
13. Pearlman Hougie, D.J. and Dickinson, J.E. (2000). The right to roam – what’s in a name? Policy development and terminology issues in England and Wales, UK. European Environment, 10(5), pp.230–238. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0976(200009/10)10:5%3C230::aid-eet234%3E3.0.co;2-c.
14. Right to Roam (2021). ABOUT | RIGHT TO ROAM. [online] NEW RIGHT TO ROAM. Available at: https://www.righttoroam.org.uk/about.
15. Shepherd and Wedderburn (2009). An equitable outcome for equestrian access rights | Shepherd and Wedderburn. [online] Shepwedd.com. Available at: https://shepwedd.com/knowledge/equitable-outcome-equestrian-access-rights [Accessed 31 Aug. 2025].
16. The Countryside Charity (2019). The story of England’s National Parks. [online] CPRE. Available at: https://www.cpre.org.uk/stories/the-story-of-englands-national-parks/ [Accessed 31 Aug. 2025].
17. UK Government (2019). National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. [online] Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/97.
18. UK Government (2020). Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [online] Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/contents.