Table 1 uses quantitative data to tell us of the collective identities of trip-takers in England in 2005. We can see from table 1similarities in age being 45+, employed full-time, not having children in their household, owning or having personal access to a car, not having a disability and being of white ethnicity between people visiting England's national parks, rural trip-taker's and all trip-taker's. The differences I have noted are that people under 45 are more likely to be rural trip-taker's than national park trip-taker's, and that the majority of visit-taker's to England's national parks are wealthy achievers or comfortably off the amount of visit-taker's that are of urban prosperity , moderate means or hard pressed are very low and that visit-taker's with children in their household were more so rural trip-taker's. Table 1 also shows that people with disabilities were of higher percentage of rural trip-taker's than national park trip-taker's. The main difference I noticed was that of ethnicity. Only 2% of rural trip-taker's and national trip-taker's were of non-white ethnicity compared to that of 96% of white ethnicity, this is a substantial difference.
Table 1 identifies many different identities, and covers basically the majority of people living in the UK today broken down into groups according to age, sex, job/earnings, ethnicity, disabled etc. and I feel the majority of people of visit England's national parks are middle aged (younger than retirement age) with perhaps grown up off-spring but this is merely an assumption bought on from the children in household category, white, wealthy achievers or comfortably off, more than likely professional home and car owners.
279 words.
Part 2.
What does the following article tell us about the relationship between place and identity?
The article in question focus' on 'Ethnic minority groups' or 'non white' people and there lack of using the UK's National Parks for their own enjoyment. Using this...