These are impressive indicators, and they certainly give substantial support to the argument for preserving large open spaces in urban areas. Czerniak et. al. would welcome such data into the mix of their essays in Large Parks, where they posit that any park larger than 500 acres “allows for dramatic exposure to the elements, to weather, geology, open horizons, and thick vegetation,” and that their “large, contiguous, non-fragmented yet differentiated area is fundamental to their ecological performance, and aspects of wildness are inescapable.” However, the Elmqvist study cites some very important qualifications to the idea that the size of a large ‘urban wild’ determines its ecological success. It concludes that while the size of the NUP has been an important driver to its richness of habitat, there has still been a loss of biodiversity over the years, such as the disappearance of certain gastropods, common species of amphibians and reptiles, and some important bird species. Much of the recent disappearances of hollow tree dependent organisms is due to the decline of oak forests caused by epidemic oak disease that has spread across Europe over the past few decades. Such a decline will spell bad news for the NUP area if the oaks do not recover, and their natural regeneration rates are often low per heavy predation on acorns and seedlings coupled with naturally slow growth rates. The authors also point out that “natural regeneration of oak is dependent on animal dispersal,” which is an issue that transcends the boundaries of the park. This means that the park must not only remain non-fragmented within itself but have strong connections to the greater green wedge system of Stockholm County (see Figure 2) if it is to continue thriving and providing its essential ecosystem services—a goal that can only be accomplished, at least in any meaningful way, through intergovernmental coordination.
REGIONAL COORDINATION IN LAND MANAGEMENT
If the model of a national city park is to be emulated, it is essential to draw lessons in regional land management, both good and bad, from Nationalstadspark. The good is most certainly the unprecedented amount of public participation and intergovernmental coordination that went into creating the NUP concept. Without the cooperation of multiple stakeholders, municipalities, regional, and finally national and international governments, the success of the NUP designation would not be possible, especially given the opposition and clout of the three expansive exploitation projects that brought on the “crisis” of open space in the first place.
Despite the success of the coordination leading to Nationalstadspark’s designation, there still remain examples of what to avoid in ongoing management practice. A study by Peter Clark showed that “during the nine years that have passed since the National Urban Park Act was established there have been positive actions by the municipalities, such as the developmental work in the field of biodiversity, but the net effect of implementation has been limited…studies of the impact point to the fact that the preservation of the NUP was not a priority for those municipal bodies in charge of planning.” Such facts highlight the need to ensure that regional coordination between municipalities is clearly laid out from the onset of an NUP management plan, something that was largely seen as missing in Nationalstadspark’s plan.
Envisioning a world dotted with national city parks that mitigate climate change while providing essential ecosystem services to urbanites is both encouraging and actionable. Given the well observed data about Nationalstadspark and other NUPs following suit, I feel confident in concluding that there are at least a few conditions under which the model can thrive no matter its location or size. If NUP candidates show signs of a consistent engagement with the area by residents and stakeholders, clear evidence of connectivity between the site and significant ecological dispersal points, and have undertaken an ongoing intergovernmental management strategy with clearly defined roles on the part of municipalities, there is potential to establish functional, beautiful, and perseverant urban wilderness.
 The Swedish Environmental Code, Ministry of the Environment and Energy, 25.
 Elmqvist, Thomas et. al. "The Dynamics of Social-Ecological Systems in Urban Landscapes: Stockholm and the National Urban Park, Sweden." Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences 1023, no. 1: 308-322. Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide, 2004, 312.
 “The Oldest Landscape,” The Park History, Nationalstadspark.
 Elmqvist, 312.
 Ibid. 312-313
 Thomas, Aaron, “World’s first national city park,” World Wildlife Fund, March 2012.
 Isling, Bengt, "A Typology for the Parks of Stockholm," Garden History 32, no. 2 (2004): 251.
 Elmqvist, 314-15.
 Czerniak, Julia, George Hargreaves, and John Beardsley, Large Parks. n.p.: New York: Princeton Architectural Press; Cambridge, Mass: In association with the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2007. Louisiana State University, 11.
 Elmqvist, 314.
 Elmqvist, 315.
 “The Park”.
 Clark, Peter, The European city and green space: London, Stockholm, Helsinki and St. Petersburg, 1850-2000. n.p.: Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006. Louisiana State University, 170.