They can also read the study to find this that “At this time, there are no standardized travel surveys that gather data for the purpose of allowing international comparisons.

Stop trolling me Dan.

High house prices are certainly a problem in London and planning is a part of that. There is a case for some relaxation of the Green Belt (and other measures) but the idea that there should be no planning, let alone that “Planning Is Destroying Britain” is nonsense.

The core of the problem is that the UK has decided to concentrate virtually all forms of power in one corner of the country, centred on London, while much of the rest of the country underperforms. As with “personal expansion”, the trick is to relieve the pressure rather than loosen your belt.

Never mind that Green Belts have massive public support in the UK (not always justifiably in my view but we live in a democracy…), the pressure for development in this region of the UK is such that it is unlikely to be sated with any amount of land.

Protection of the countryside, especially in the more densely-populated South East is hugely-important to the English. Government recently sought to relax planning laws: the perceived threat to the countryside unleased a huge and unprecedented backlash, most particularly amongst the socially conservative/economically liberal classes. The countryside is highly-valued (even if not by economists) and a central part of the national identity.

England (as opposed to the UK) is a densely-populated country – among developed nations of reasonable size (10x Connecticut) and major population (10s of millions): only South Korea is more so. England has a steadily rising population and both this and density are concentrated around London.

London’s housing is a problem but the solution is not to abandon planning (The Economist didn’t say that) but more intelligent planning (including a more flexible attitude to the greenbelt) and resultion of the England’s almost uniquely skewed growth pressures.

That. Is. Rrrrrrrich.

Also, too, you clearly have not read the paper or purposely mislead as to its contents. Its upthread twice, anyone can check if your assertions are based in reality! Why mislead as to its contents?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?

But golly: what happens if no one has done a direct comparative study with exactly what someone pretends to demand (I mean, how long does it take to study every permutation of reality)?

Are we unable to examine the premise and throw up our hands and call it a day? What do millllions of humans do in the thousands of times per year when some issue comes up that has no direct comparative study?

Gosh, does everything just grind to a halt because nothing can be done and everyone sits around scratching their heads until someone does a direct study, or are there methods to compare, in use for centuries??

chuckle

Anyhoo:

The study “Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America, and Australia” does not directly compare hiking rates of people in the UK and US. Nowhere.

Ah. You either haven’t bothered to read the paper, or you misrepresent what it compared. Someone upthread has read the paper and shared the comparison you claim doesn’t exist.

DS

No study exists documenting how many Americans “understand the concept of walking/hiking.” Period.

That you’re defending such a ludicrous assertion on this thread again shows you to be the troll you are.

The study “Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America, and Australia” does not directly compare hiking rates of people in the UK and US. Nowhere. It compares Europeans in general, but does not single out the British for comparison.

The study even states that “At this time, there are no standardized travel surveys that gather data for the purpose of allowing international comparisons.”

According to the Sports England telephone survey, 22% of people in England (not the entire UK as national stats do not exist) walk for recreation for 30 minutes in four weeks, while the CDC paper measures leisure walking at 30 minutes a day.

None of this matters anyway because the original issue was with the statement that Americans don’t understand the concept of walking/hiking. This has nothing to do with ideology, which I have not inserted into this argument. You’re projecting. You don’t even know my ideology; in the case of greenbelts, I live next to one and use it almost daily and support the preservation of green spaces in urban, rural, and wild areas.

So stop trolling me now.

No need to make false accusations and scurrilously mischaracterize because you got what you demanded, and it didn’t match your worldview or self-identity.

But that’s exactly what we expect from certain quarters. Right to the script. Just according to template.

DS

Let’s examine the “context” because you interjected yourself, premature injectulator that you are, into this thread, which had nothing to do with you except your ego apparently.

Here’s the context: “(I don’t think most Americans would understand the concept of walking/hiking)”

First of all, this was not your comment, so shut the fuck up.

Second, the comment is ludicrous on its face. Most Americans wouldn’t “understand” the concept of walking/hiking? Bullshit. Pure anti-American drivel. Purely unsubstantiated rant.

Based on this, I should have to say no more. That you’re defending a bare assertion fallacy shows you to be the troll you are.

You’re also a cherry picker for ignoring this stat for the one you picked, cherry picker:

“In the United States, 41.5% of adults walked for leisure and 28.2% walked for transportation in intervals of at least 10 min.”

Again: Show me a study with direct comparisons between hiking participation in the US vs. UK, which is totally irrelevant to the made up assertion, not by you, interjector, that Most Americans wouldn’t “understand” the concept of walking/hiking.

Now be gone, troll!

psssst…

Two people in this thread already provided such a study. One person even made an assertion from it that you dismissed, apparently without reading the study you demanded.

Ah, well. But of course the Green Belts are loved and the majority doesn’t want them paved over. Despite the lack of rigid analysis showing the benefits of lower prices for paving over greenery. Sounds just like the complaints about the Bay Area.

DS

Here’s the context: “(I don’t think most Americans would understand the concept of walking/hiking)”

First of all, this was not your comment, so shut the fuck up.

Second, the comment is ludicrous on its face. Most Americans wouldn’t “understand” the concept of walking/hiking? Bullshit. Pure anti-American drivel. Purely unsubstantiated rant.

So.

Now.

Yes, more UK citizens walk for transportation.

Anyone is welcomed to provide a study comparing citizens of the UK to Americans in terms of recreational hiking. Until you can provide such a study, certainly you need to shut the fuck up.

As southeasterner stated, the statistics [Frank] indicated were not consistent. These stats do not show whether or not the Green Belts are used for walking and can be paved over and their beauty lost, but we should at least acknowledge that one of the links that was liked states

Walking trends

The popularity of leisure walking appears to be rising. The number of English adults walking recreationally for at least 30 minutes every month increased by 954,700 (around 10%) between 2006 and 2008.

and

Based on the findings, 6% of U.S. adults were considered regularly active (? 5 days/week for ? 30 min/day) by walking for transportation and 9% were regularly active by walking for leisure.

So, consistency shows that Brits do walk more than Yanks for recreation/leisure. Consistency.

And whether the Green Belts should be paved over, I note here – as in the Bay Area – no one has “remembered” to crunch some numbers for an honest Cost-Benefit Analysis to see what effect paving over greenery would have on prices.

Gosh, since it is so important to do so, you’d think someone can bust out a white paper with those numbers. I wonder where that paper is? I wonder…I wonnnnnderrrrrrrr..

DS