Ethnic minorities don't visit the countryside?

[tatt]

"although about 10% of the population is of an ethnic minority background, only about 1% of visitors to National Parks are from ethnic minorities." from
www.mosaicnationalparks.org/

Anyone from an ethnic minority have a view on why not?

Hmm I think just speaking from my own experience in the South Asian/Indian community that I grew up in people do love a 'day trip' often to a national trust place or other 'scenic spot' on a sunny day with a picnic being the high point-lots of delicious food.
What they don't really enjoy is being lashed by wind and horizontal rain and tramping through knee deep mud in order to sample some 'view' which is nowt but an expanse of grey sky and sea.
Being a bit of an urbanite I can't say I blame them really.
I think I bought my first set of walking boots at the advanced age of 29 or so. I will do 3 miles or so with a pub or cafe at the end but absolutely no more.
Happily now I can use DS (3) who is rubbish at walking and DD (1) who will go in the backpack but is a major fatty and gives even DH backache as my excuse not to go for 'proper' walks.
Isn't this desire for long walks in inclement weather wearing waterproofs shorts and knee socks with a nice thermos a peculiarly British thing tied up generally with our fondness for adversity, bad food and dogs? I'm sure those 'Continentals' don't do it.

I'm blaming Wordsworth. And his mates. Bloody romantics. Got a lot to answer for.

Agree that it is a cultural thing. Dh is from middle east. There is no culture of driving to a beauty spot and then 'going for a walk'. Basically too hot and we're talking harsh landscape there - brown and spiky not green and pleasant.

Also no culture of exercising dogs. They will be chained up in a yard or kept on a 5th floor apartment balcony so another reason to stay at home with the aircon on.

It took a long time to train up dh . Now when his relatives come over to stay and we take them round the local beauty spots etc dh walks them off their legs. (He still insists on the enormous picnics too though which is fine by me)

no idea how they find out - ask people presumably because I don't think they mean just one ethnic minority. Anyone around of Chinese extraction to say if walks in the country are less common in their family?

is it just ethnic minorities, or poorer people as a whole? Ethnic minorities tend to be on lower wages. I worked in a school in London & took 14 yr old kids out for a trip, many of whom had never been out of London, never seen the countryside, never seen a cow, didn't realise where milk came from etc. Not just the ethnic minority kids, the poor wc white ones too.

Not all ethnic minorities are poorer - see quotes from Government survey. Don't know if Indians visit the country more than Bangladeshi. The Scottish survey seems to suggest health is an issue and that could be related to income.

"Around two-fifths of people from ethnic minorities live in low-income households, twice the rate for White people.
Within this, there are big variations by ethnic group. For example, more than half of people from Bangladeshi and Pakistani ethnic backgrounds live in low-income households. By contrast, a quarter of people from an Indian ethnic background live in low-income households, only a bit higher than the rate for White people. "

"Just over a quarter of all Scottish adults participated in open-air recreation at least once a week. While members of social class A and B and people aged between 35 and 54 were more likely to have taken part in open-air recreation, people who did not have access to a car and social class D and E were much less likely to have done so.
Most regular participants were motivated by the desire to exercise and enjoy fresh air and the need to walk dogs. Less frequent visitors to the countryside often had different motivations and were more likely to be driven by the opportunities to take a 'day out', to enjoy scenery and to take advantage of good weather conditions.
Factors preventing or discouraging regular participants of countryside activities from taking part in open-air recreation more often included poor health, lack of time, and inclement weather conditions. Those respondents who had not undertaken any open-air recreation in the countryside during the previous year were more likely than other to have been prevented by poor health, lack of time, lack of interest or old age."

What's the "national parks" thing though?

Have just googled and certainly I don't visit those places. Have been to a couple in my life but normally I go to the seaside or for a stomp around normal unlabelled countryside.

Maybe that's what all the ethnic minorities go too.

You can't say that because people don't go to a select list of places they never have outings in the countryside!

DP's family don't do it. Dp was almost scared the first time I took him walking in the forest, he was convinced some sort of wild animal was going to jump out and bite him. He hated mud, hates dogs, hated walking.
Dp's family def would not do walking for walkings sake, and certainly not do mud or dogs!

I think it was all a new experience for him and he does really enjoy it now. It's jsut not part of his culture and I suspect if he had married someone of his own culture he still wouldn't have done it. They don't really get the fun of it, and indians in particular are hugely sociable people ime so it is hard to imagine the appeal of 'getting away from it all' to them.

The picnics are great though - as long as they have enough food to feed an army and proper chairs and tables they are happy!

I hate the way 'ethnic minority' and 'socially/financially disadvantaged' seem to mean the same thing to some people.

I was in a v busy Keswick at the weekend, after a walk over Catbells (like the M25, but in my defense it was ds' first fell at 7mths!) and in the whole day I saw 2 "ethnic minority" people.

The whole place was full of white middle class.

I think although the mosaic project is admirable, it is a more complex picture - white working class, minorities of all financial/location etc are not present in significant numbers. Accommodation/gear is expensive if you are on a budget, and culturally the idea may not be appealing.

I don't see national parks as essentially exclusively white, but I can see why those who do go may feel they don't belong, as they are such a minority - a huge contrast to their experience in the cities.

I was trekking in Nepal and the difference in cultures was really marked - to locals the landscape was a working one, either to farm in or to earn money portering or guiding. To foreign tourists it was leisure. Maybe a similar difference in attitude exists over here? I don't know.

Schemes getting school kids out on residentials from inner city schools, and an increase in school veg plots/teaching where milk comes from would be a start in a long term change in attitudes, on all sides.

Lovelytinofspam a National park is purely a defined area that is protected from development etc. To you and me its just a lovely area to walk in, the same as an unlabelled area. There is nothing special or exclusive about it, its just a beautiful area to visit.

Well, DP (French) has only ventured outside London once (supervised by me, to Cambridge) in three years of living in the UK.

As a child and teenager, having been dragged up and down hills (like Custardo), I really don't get the point. Why would someone choose to walk for ages, get tired, get rained on, stand in the blasting wind and get ear-ache, all for entertainment?! I much prefer going to a nice civilised park and eating a great big picnic. Much more civilised.

Belle my point was that the statistic refers specifically to national parks. That is what they have asked people about. Thus excluding any other nature/country activities that people might be participating in.

For eg I would be marked in the article as someone who saw the countryside as a "no go zone" due to my lack of national park activity, despite the fact I spend plenty of time tramping around other places.

lovelytinofspam sorry I didn't mean that to read patronisingly, I agree with you, the sample area is restrictive. It would be a better guide to sample inner city populations and ask them what would encourage them out in the countryside, regardless of origin or finances.

Or simply ask people if they ever go to the countryside/seaside/etc - which would give the answer that people seem to be looking for in the first place!

Or maybe the survey itself was done to see if the national parks were "exclusive" - and the answer has been extrapolated inappropriately by the journalist.

Why were these stats complied? DH & myself have this conversation about the number of 'ethnic' people living in the UK. The word 'minority' should give them a hint! The UK is still made up of predominately white skinned people. High percentage live in big cities! Sooooo they would not be in the hills and countrysides everyday. Soooo 2 'ethnic' people in Keswick statistically might be in proportion to the make-up of the country.
Again why compile the stats, are they going to give us free passes? Mini-bus trips to see cows?10 percent discount at The Fat Duck' WHY?

I have now read the article in The Times Magazine 20/06/09 by Sathnam Sanghera. What a sweet article. I understand now! It made me think of my Dad, sadly gone now. Wish I could take him to the countryside now I've read the article. Never thought about it before. He is so right about all the food that needs to be taken. My mum is from the Med. The few trips out of town we took with Dad involved hours of preparation, tortillas, fruits salad, fruit, roast lamb potato salad, various salads, various breads! No wonder my Dad would be doing his nut by 10am. Always in heavy traffic in a van with a small love seat in the back, tied by the handles to the seat belts at front I'll take mum out in the summer

Is it not a matter of choice?

Maybe they don't want to go?

Yep! But it's sometimes nice to open peoples eyes to what is available so, they can make an informed choice.

It may not be obvious to people raised in other countries that you can wander just about anywhere in the countryside in the UK. If you aren't used to exploring public footpaths nearer to where you live, undertaking a significant journey to a National Park may be too big a leap.

It may also not be obvious that the UK is relatively free of harmful animals, insects and plants. Its safe to sit on the grass just about anywhere. The many dogs sharing the paths may be scary but theres no chance they will be rabid. It never occurred to me how lucky we are here until I lived in Pennsylvania for a couple of years.

Why does it have to be a national park though? I don't understand the significance of that.

Maybe everyone is going to other places.

It seems such an odd extrapolation.

I think its just because those are areas which are specifically managed with tourism in mind, and there are statistics and funding issues.

• and as National parks there is presumably, and rightly, an onus on them to try to serve the whole nation, anyone who might enjoy them if they knew about them/could access them etc. Not just dyed-in-the-(thick)-wool rambling types.

Aha.

You see personally speaking I prefer an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Maybe all the ethnic minorities do too

Although there is probably some overlap...

I just think the extrapolation "no visits to national parks = no countryside visiting" is an extrapolation too far...

I do think it's a class thing though. I'm not meaning to lump all 'ethnic minorities' into a 'deprived' pigeonhole. But think about it more broadly, who are usually working the weekend shifts while the better off members of society are 'at leisure' (ie, piling the kids, wellies, etc into the volvo and heading for a national park)? Who are driving buses/manning security/working overtime in factories/cooking takeaways etc? Who are more likely to be on the sort of contracts that don't include any paid holiday?

In my experience, for some people (ethnic minority or not) stretches of time where the family are all off work/school at the same time and nobody's feeling obliged to earn any extra money are a luxury in themselves. And often this time, precious that it is, is spent travelling to visit relatives/friends to catch up rather than embarking on adventures further afield.

Such a sorry state of affairs because ultimately I agree there's some beautiful countryside here that lots of people aren't getting to experience.

Hmm, this has got me thinking. I've had lots of arguments with dh in the past because in my eyes he didn't want to do anything as a family. He hated National Trust properties when we went and never wanted to go to any of the walky type places when I suggested them, just couldn't see the point. Even visiting a new or different town was met with a "what for?".

He is coming round to it though now, and although he'd still be happy to go to my idea of hell eg soft play, amusements etc he does now appreciate going somewhere just to walk, look at scenery or architecture.

Do many people in general go to national parks though? I don't...I go to places local to me-plenty of countryside that isn't a national park.