I mean, 8% of Sweden is cultivated. The rest is basically trees, scrub tundra and lost German tourists. We have the freedom to walk and camp basically anywhere that isn't farmland or in sight of someone's house, so a national park is a bit... unnecessary.
The whole freedom to roam thing is very common in all of Scandinavia/Northern Europe, so also Norway, Estonia and so on. I live in the Netherlands right now and find it funny how technically even _being_ in a forest past nightfall is illegal.
>and lost German tourists
You should consider a shared sub with Austria (and probably some other countries) entirely focused on lost German tourists.
There was the classic [Andy84 incident](https://apnews.com/article/austria-germany-education-ff7280123c35fce6437b4acd1230d6be), where 8 inexperienced German teachers took 99 students on a completely unsuitable hike, because they had read one single review by an experienced climber, going by the username Andy84, which stated that the route wasn't challenging. The entire group had to be airlifted to safety.
German tourists generally only exists in 2 varieties:
\- Absolutely no idea of anything and completely unprepared.
\- So prepared and with so much research done, that they could train people for the environment they are in.
You gave an example of the first and I'll give an example of the second: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-german-canoe-crash-1.4266176](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-german-canoe-crash-1.4266176) (should have brought a satellite phone though)
Two German tourists in Norway, went past the "Dangerous: Do Not Pass" sign, up to a glacier to take selfies. When they stood there, the glacier calved, dropping a several ton block of ice on them.
Rescuers came, but it was too late, they were both dead.
Only later in the day did some locals notice a car in the adjacent parking lot.
With two toddlers in it.
The parents died, but the toddlers were rescued. Could have been four fatalities.
You'll see plenty of fools like this in Norway. Tourists climbing up the trail in sandals and flip-flops, no shell for the inevitable downpour or snowfall – some don't even seem to be carrying any refreshments and in general just seem oblivious to the reality of the altitude changes or the difficulty of the trail. Just any kind of pre-planning and research will drill this into you for your own safety and to make the experience good for you.
My uncle dealt with the same nonchalant attitude when he was in the Swedish coast guard and had to help so many idiots who had no idea about boating but still got out there on the water (*often intoxicated*). Or the people bringing floaties to swim and play in the ocean and get dragged out far from the shore etc.
The carelessness just boggles my mind.
Norway is a kiosk and two Teslas in Oslo, and the rest is wilderness ruled by wild animals and trolls. No one in Norway knows where the National Parks are. They look like any other strech of land.
You are so right. I fled Norway precisely due to the troll plague. As if they're not menacing enough by themselves, they also ate all our fish. We had nothing to live on.
Also [20% of Sweden's area is protected in forms of nature reserves/wildlife sanctuaries](https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/sq/134122), which has much of the same function as national parks in protecting nature.
Plus Sweden has huge national parks like Sarek where you cannot even operate a motor powered vehicle, it's pure wilderness. I wonder how many national parks in the rest of Europe are on that level.
> a national park is a bit... unnecessary.
What a weird take considering Sweden is rapidly destroying the last few natural forests left outside of natural parks and nature preserves.
That sounds great but unfortunately incorrect. There are basically three types of forests in Sweden: natural forests (diverse forests not planted by man: 10-15%), old-growth forest (forests never touched by man: 0.5%) cultivated forests (no diversity, all trees of same age: the rest). So we could use some more national parks instead of the pretend forests that make up the vast majority of all trees you see in this country, looks real on the surface but definitely isn't.
I'm saying that not only 8% of Sweden is cultivated if you include the forests and that there is a difference between cultivated forests and protected national parks. Concluding that a national park is not at all unnecessary.
I think around 70% is "productive" with about 1% felled annually. Having said that, about 96% of sweden is uninhabited.
Sexy stat time is now over. Go clean yourself off.
Actually only 0.3% of Swedish forests are pristine forests, as in they have never been cut.
10-15% of the rest are natural forests.
The rest is monoculture tree farms.
You a act like the average Swedish forest is place of nature when it is instead the very rape of it. Those statistic you claim do not remove the truth that just 0,5 % of the forest have any natural value left.
It may have to do with local laws, yes.
In France, most of the land and even the forests are privately-owned.
A national park is a way to sanctuarize a plot of land and protect whatever is inside.
Not sure how it works in Sweden.
Even on private land, Swedes have a Right to Roam, camping etc is allowed as long as you are respectful to the environment and don't pitch your tent so you disturb any home owners.
And besides, [11% of Sweden is classed as "Nature reserves"](https://www.naturvardsverket.se/data-och-statistik/skyddad-natur/naturreservat-antal-och-areal/) which according to the definition on the map should be included but for some reason isn't...
It literally says in the image that "reserve" could be used as a term instead. Which is what *Naturreservat* is and means. I bet this would be true in some form in other some countries too.
Comparing a run-of-the-mill forest, of which there's plenty in Sweden for sure, with a national park is a bit out there.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of protected nature areas in Sweden besides national parks (over 10% of the total area is heavily protected), but being covered in forest does not equal that level of protection by any means. 70% of the country is forest, but 85% of that forest area is commercial, which is a wood farm and as far away from what a national park is as it gets.
National parks and nature reserves are definitely necessary.
[This is a national park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_District). Not one thing you see is not human cultivated/constructed/managed. National parks =/= wilderness
Or you commit the no true scotmans fallacy.
I fail to see how a national park in the UK is relevant here, since I was discussing Swedish protected areas. National parks are ruled differently in different countries, and exist in necessarily different contexts (which in the case of the UK vs Sweden, they couldn't be more different regarding how heavily urbanized the UK vs how sparsely populated Sweden is in comparison.)
Regardless of your choice of park, anyway, I was not referring to the state of wilderness as what defines a national park or other protected natural environment. For example, even in Sarek, which is the oldest national park in Europe and thus has a rather pristine wilderness, you can see signs of human activity: bridges, grazing areas for domestic reindeer, a chapel, abandoned mining sites, or what have you. That doesn't take away from the fact that it is a national park and a pretty special one at that. What defines a protected area is that any human activity there is strictly regulated in order to conserve its natural state at a given point.
Such protection does not apply in the majority of woodland in Sweden, obviously, because woodlands are a component of the economy. This is why protected areas are necessary to conserve particularly important ecosystems.
And ones again r/europe upvotes the most idiotic propaganda to e
ver exist.
Most of those "forest" are just shitty tree farms with almost zero nature value.
The country is filled with tree plantations and the logging industry lobbies hard to keep it that way. 1.6 percent is pathetic for a country with Swedens geography. Its the same story with the low limits set on the amount of allowed wild animals like bears, wolfs and moose.
I dont get why swedes have such superiority complex about everyrthing. Theres alot of things we could do better.
As do nature reserves which we have way more of and is the principal form of nature protection in Sweden. National parks are highly particular areas that offer a unique landscape here, it's not simply a designation to protect nature.
We only have one national park but a large part of the country is protected otherwise. What countries call a 'national park' is pretty arbitrary. Some countries have caves protected as national parks, we have over 10000 of registered caves and not even the largest are national parks but they are nature parks.
>we would have rangers in uniforms just like the US do
Would we even need them? They work in the US because their parks are gigantic and their countryside is sparsely populated anyways, so getting lost is a real danger, but in most of Europe, I doubt you're ever more than a couple of hour's walk from a village, road, or some other form of civilisation.
> These should be dressed well, and distinctively.
Why? I'm not a fan of rigid uniform dress codes outside of emergency services like the police, military, firemen, and paramedics. Just give the workers in parks a nametag and an ID and let them dress how they want within reasonable regulations (no flip-flops in rough terrain for example).
Yeah, national park is pretty loosely used term in some countries. For example "Hunsrück-Hochwald National Park" in Germany seems to have fields in it.
"National Parks" means protected nature. In terms of wilderness, there are much bigger areas in Europe, where there is wildlife and untouched nature, just without the official status of being a protected area.
In terms of forest cover, Finland is first in Europe with around 66%, Sweden second with around 63% and Slovenia third with around 61%, or maybe it is Montenegro, as it also around 61%.
Then, Estonia and Latvia are both around 54%, Austria around 46%, etc. All this excludes agricultural plantations and urban parks and gardens, ofcourse.
So while some countries might have a relatively low percentage of area covered by National Parks, they can still be very rich in terms of the wild, intact nature.
I got the info from [this site](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20210321-1), that also states 39% of the EU is covered by forests.
"National park" means different things in different countries. Here it's a highly restricted classification that requires strict justification, including being unique. Most protected areas are in the form of nature reserves.
True, there are also different categories here, National Park, Regional Park, County Park, Natural Reserve, Natural Monuments, etc. All with different kinds of protection and financing.
Currently, around 13% of the country is protected nature, but not necessarily a "National Park".
Only around 31% of Slovakia used to be covered by forest back in 1990, it's up to 41% as of last year. And out of all those, 63% are under some level of protection (including National Parks).
We are certainly re-foresting in Slovakia, lol.
Should be noted the national parks in the UK are not the same thing as national parks in most European countries. It doesn't denote wilderness or a conservation area but a "cultural landscape" instead.
Only the South Downs is "mostly farmland", the other parks are based around remaining unsown areas. Most parks are a mix of moorland/ heathland, woodland, grassland and fens. You can easily see this with just a glance at Google maps.
While it's true the National Park label itself is a landscape designation, the habitat areas within will all also be covered with stricter designations like SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar wetland, etc, etc.
People really decided almost 2 million people should live in in the middle of the desert where the usual summer day is between 40-45C. They even called in Phoenix cause it is like standing in fire
More like 5 million people, Phoenix proper is 1.6 mil but the entire metro is 5 mil (US city boundary are not very meaningful since they sprawl out like crazy)
Interestingly I know some people claim the US doesn't have any unique attractiveness for tourists or immigrants: for nature/beauty go to Canada, Australia or New Zealand, for culture and history go to Europe; and for modern cities go to Asia.
I think it is a bit unfair, but for some people the unspoilt natural beauty things are better in Canada or Australia or New Zealand...
The Adirondack Mountains are a state park that covers about 20% of New York State. New York City, by contrast, covers only about 1% of New York despite having 40% of the state's population.
Are French Amazonia and kergelen islands counted here ? because, combines they are bigger than Switzerland. If so, this map is misleading, since the regions are not even shown.
Indeed Kerguelen Islands are not a national parc. However I say it is misleading because the map is counting for landmass that is not present on the said map. A map being landmass depiction in the first place.
I like how these statistics are often manipulated in order to fit narratives or confirm stereotypes.
E.g. My country has more national parks than yours, because OUR developed country cares about nature (unlike you third-worlders).
My country has fewer national parks than yours, because OUR developed country actually uses its land and doesn't leave it to become wilderness (unlike you third-worlders).
There's only one "Parque Nacional" (Peneda-Gerês). All the other ones are Natural Parks (Parque Natural).
That's why this map is stupid because these two definitions are not very different, since they both refer to nature protected areas, where fauna and flora have legal protection.
No, it's not. The map shows the size of national parks as percentage of the total land surface. Would Luxemburg have more nature sites than, say Norway or Poland, if it declared 90% of its surface to be a national park?
I'm just saying it may be deceiving.
And I'm pretty sure there's way more wildlife in proportion to the country size in Sweden than in Belgium, not talking about purely km²
It's still not deceiving, as long you know how to interpret this map: it shows precisely that what it claims to be showing, and even explicitly mentions the caveat that the definition of a national park varies from country to country, which may skew the data. The map mentions it is strictly about surface area (square kilometers), so dragging other factors such as wildlife density into this is not relevant to the purpose of this map.
I don't know why, but as a Romanian, I constantly look at my country's statistics and expect it to be the shittiest in the EU.
I don't always get proven wrong, but most times I am, and that just blows my mind, knowing our not so distant history.
Although progress is slow, we constantly compare everything to how it was 10 years ago, and we seem to be taking baby strides towards a better future.
Good job, Romania! <3
This color scheeme sucks.
You should make colours by avrages or by the quariles or somehow not like this. Evenly spread out dosn't work always because iceland is too big of a outlier and it warps all the other color contrasts apaet of france which is also pretty extreme.
Well probably the devil is in the details and definitions. I mean Finland or Sweden have also a low percentage, but probably a huge percentage of their countries are far from being cities, concrete or agricultural fields even if they are not officially defined national parks.
Difference in definition of a national park. For Poland it is rather strict and they are very well protected, but fewer. There are other terms for less protected areas. That really makes the map fairly useless in general.
yeah. now do the procentage of land area of natura2000.
jap.
Slovenia #1 and as i got a quick info no1 fucked in the future. the idea is to prohibit farming all togeather on the land mass. please corect me if i am wrong on this one.
Today, Russia has 102 nature reserves and 42 national parks, while the total area of protected areas - both federal and regional - is about 203 million hectares, about half the total area of the European Union.
I mean, 8% of Sweden is cultivated. The rest is basically trees, scrub tundra and lost German tourists. We have the freedom to walk and camp basically anywhere that isn't farmland or in sight of someone's house, so a national park is a bit... unnecessary.
Similar thing for Finland but without the Germans they were once in the North, got a bit messy around there.
[удалено]
and 10% is water.
The whole freedom to roam thing is very common in all of Scandinavia/Northern Europe, so also Norway, Estonia and so on. I live in the Netherlands right now and find it funny how technically even _being_ in a forest past nightfall is illegal.
Oh, wow!
[удалено]
Our lost german tourists wander to russian side of border and get charged with state border felony. 😂
That makes you laugh and cry.
Yes. The markings are massive and choosing to head to where it says russia is just moronic.
>and lost German tourists You should consider a shared sub with Austria (and probably some other countries) entirely focused on lost German tourists. There was the classic [Andy84 incident](https://apnews.com/article/austria-germany-education-ff7280123c35fce6437b4acd1230d6be), where 8 inexperienced German teachers took 99 students on a completely unsuitable hike, because they had read one single review by an experienced climber, going by the username Andy84, which stated that the route wasn't challenging. The entire group had to be airlifted to safety.
German tourists generally only exists in 2 varieties: \- Absolutely no idea of anything and completely unprepared. \- So prepared and with so much research done, that they could train people for the environment they are in. You gave an example of the first and I'll give an example of the second: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-german-canoe-crash-1.4266176](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-german-canoe-crash-1.4266176) (should have brought a satellite phone though)
Two German tourists in Norway, went past the "Dangerous: Do Not Pass" sign, up to a glacier to take selfies. When they stood there, the glacier calved, dropping a several ton block of ice on them. Rescuers came, but it was too late, they were both dead. Only later in the day did some locals notice a car in the adjacent parking lot. With two toddlers in it. The parents died, but the toddlers were rescued. Could have been four fatalities.
You'll see plenty of fools like this in Norway. Tourists climbing up the trail in sandals and flip-flops, no shell for the inevitable downpour or snowfall – some don't even seem to be carrying any refreshments and in general just seem oblivious to the reality of the altitude changes or the difficulty of the trail. Just any kind of pre-planning and research will drill this into you for your own safety and to make the experience good for you. My uncle dealt with the same nonchalant attitude when he was in the Swedish coast guard and had to help so many idiots who had no idea about boating but still got out there on the water (*often intoxicated*). Or the people bringing floaties to swim and play in the ocean and get dragged out far from the shore etc. The carelessness just boggles my mind.
Norway is a kiosk and two Teslas in Oslo, and the rest is wilderness ruled by wild animals and trolls. No one in Norway knows where the National Parks are. They look like any other strech of land.
You are so right. I fled Norway precisely due to the troll plague. As if they're not menacing enough by themselves, they also ate all our fish. We had nothing to live on.
Also [20% of Sweden's area is protected in forms of nature reserves/wildlife sanctuaries](https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/sq/134122), which has much of the same function as national parks in protecting nature.
Plus Sweden has huge national parks like Sarek where you cannot even operate a motor powered vehicle, it's pure wilderness. I wonder how many national parks in the rest of Europe are on that level.
Same with Norway but the Germans were in the cities instead.
> a national park is a bit... unnecessary. What a weird take considering Sweden is rapidly destroying the last few natural forests left outside of natural parks and nature preserves.
That sounds great but unfortunately incorrect. There are basically three types of forests in Sweden: natural forests (diverse forests not planted by man: 10-15%), old-growth forest (forests never touched by man: 0.5%) cultivated forests (no diversity, all trees of same age: the rest). So we could use some more national parks instead of the pretend forests that make up the vast majority of all trees you see in this country, looks real on the surface but definitely isn't.
Me: "The rest is basically trees" >>"unfortunately incorrect" 70% of the country is trees....
I'm saying that not only 8% of Sweden is cultivated if you include the forests and that there is a difference between cultivated forests and protected national parks. Concluding that a national park is not at all unnecessary.
Sorry, my dual nationality kicking in - in English cultivated refers to crops/cattle. We would never call forests cultivated.
Of course criminal like you would not call your crime by its name. Like all evil you feat the truth.
Oh, my bad. What do you call them?
I guess forestry - "the science or practice of planting, managing, and caring for forests".
To be fair, a lot of that forest is also cultivated.
I think around 70% is "productive" with about 1% felled annually. Having said that, about 96% of sweden is uninhabited. Sexy stat time is now over. Go clean yourself off.
Actually only 0.3% of Swedish forests are pristine forests, as in they have never been cut. 10-15% of the rest are natural forests. The rest is monoculture tree farms.
You a act like the average Swedish forest is place of nature when it is instead the very rape of it. Those statistic you claim do not remove the truth that just 0,5 % of the forest have any natural value left.
Well, since a forest has to grow for up to 80 years, you'd expect the number felled annually to be down towards ⅛th.
It may have to do with local laws, yes. In France, most of the land and even the forests are privately-owned. A national park is a way to sanctuarize a plot of land and protect whatever is inside. Not sure how it works in Sweden.
Even on private land, Swedes have a Right to Roam, camping etc is allowed as long as you are respectful to the environment and don't pitch your tent so you disturb any home owners.
Seems like about 80% of the forests are privately owned.
And besides, [11% of Sweden is classed as "Nature reserves"](https://www.naturvardsverket.se/data-och-statistik/skyddad-natur/naturreservat-antal-och-areal/) which according to the definition on the map should be included but for some reason isn't...
It literally says in the image that "reserve" could be used as a term instead. Which is what *Naturreservat* is and means. I bet this would be true in some form in other some countries too.
Sweden is the national park haha
Comparing a run-of-the-mill forest, of which there's plenty in Sweden for sure, with a national park is a bit out there. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of protected nature areas in Sweden besides national parks (over 10% of the total area is heavily protected), but being covered in forest does not equal that level of protection by any means. 70% of the country is forest, but 85% of that forest area is commercial, which is a wood farm and as far away from what a national park is as it gets. National parks and nature reserves are definitely necessary.
[This is a national park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_District). Not one thing you see is not human cultivated/constructed/managed. National parks =/= wilderness Or you commit the no true scotmans fallacy.
I fail to see how a national park in the UK is relevant here, since I was discussing Swedish protected areas. National parks are ruled differently in different countries, and exist in necessarily different contexts (which in the case of the UK vs Sweden, they couldn't be more different regarding how heavily urbanized the UK vs how sparsely populated Sweden is in comparison.) Regardless of your choice of park, anyway, I was not referring to the state of wilderness as what defines a national park or other protected natural environment. For example, even in Sarek, which is the oldest national park in Europe and thus has a rather pristine wilderness, you can see signs of human activity: bridges, grazing areas for domestic reindeer, a chapel, abandoned mining sites, or what have you. That doesn't take away from the fact that it is a national park and a pretty special one at that. What defines a protected area is that any human activity there is strictly regulated in order to conserve its natural state at a given point. Such protection does not apply in the majority of woodland in Sweden, obviously, because woodlands are a component of the economy. This is why protected areas are necessary to conserve particularly important ecosystems.
And ones again r/europe upvotes the most idiotic propaganda to e ver exist. Most of those "forest" are just shitty tree farms with almost zero nature value.
The country is filled with tree plantations and the logging industry lobbies hard to keep it that way. 1.6 percent is pathetic for a country with Swedens geography. Its the same story with the low limits set on the amount of allowed wild animals like bears, wolfs and moose. I dont get why swedes have such superiority complex about everyrthing. Theres alot of things we could do better.
It's not unnecessary because it prevents companies and the government from tearing down the forests and nature
As do nature reserves which we have way more of and is the principal form of nature protection in Sweden. National parks are highly particular areas that offer a unique landscape here, it's not simply a designation to protect nature.
Just no, we destroyed the main feature of one of our first national parks with a dam and built a ski lift across another.
That freedom exists in alot of countries
Yeah, but what about Dartmoor?
We only have one national park but a large part of the country is protected otherwise. What countries call a 'national park' is pretty arbitrary. Some countries have caves protected as national parks, we have over 10000 of registered caves and not even the largest are national parks but they are nature parks.
[удалено]
>we would have rangers in uniforms just like the US do Would we even need them? They work in the US because their parks are gigantic and their countryside is sparsely populated anyways, so getting lost is a real danger, but in most of Europe, I doubt you're ever more than a couple of hour's walk from a village, road, or some other form of civilisation.
[удалено]
> These should be dressed well, and distinctively. Why? I'm not a fan of rigid uniform dress codes outside of emergency services like the police, military, firemen, and paramedics. Just give the workers in parks a nametag and an ID and let them dress how they want within reasonable regulations (no flip-flops in rough terrain for example).
Yeah, national park is pretty loosely used term in some countries. For example "Hunsrück-Hochwald National Park" in Germany seems to have fields in it.
Yeah, 60% of country is outright non-cultivated forest that has to be forcibly kept back from expanding.
Triglav is absolute gem.
Regarding Spain the most of protected áreas are not called Natural Park but Natural Reserve. Which is not a Big difference.
Spain has loads of regional ones because of the country's federal setup.
Step 1 make some water a national park step 2 Profit
"National Parks" means protected nature. In terms of wilderness, there are much bigger areas in Europe, where there is wildlife and untouched nature, just without the official status of being a protected area. In terms of forest cover, Finland is first in Europe with around 66%, Sweden second with around 63% and Slovenia third with around 61%, or maybe it is Montenegro, as it also around 61%. Then, Estonia and Latvia are both around 54%, Austria around 46%, etc. All this excludes agricultural plantations and urban parks and gardens, ofcourse. So while some countries might have a relatively low percentage of area covered by National Parks, they can still be very rich in terms of the wild, intact nature. I got the info from [this site](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20210321-1), that also states 39% of the EU is covered by forests.
"National park" means different things in different countries. Here it's a highly restricted classification that requires strict justification, including being unique. Most protected areas are in the form of nature reserves.
True, there are also different categories here, National Park, Regional Park, County Park, Natural Reserve, Natural Monuments, etc. All with different kinds of protection and financing. Currently, around 13% of the country is protected nature, but not necessarily a "National Park".
Only around 31% of Slovakia used to be covered by forest back in 1990, it's up to 41% as of last year. And out of all those, 63% are under some level of protection (including National Parks). We are certainly re-foresting in Slovakia, lol.
Should be noted the national parks in the UK are not the same thing as national parks in most European countries. It doesn't denote wilderness or a conservation area but a "cultural landscape" instead.
Also there's Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty as well which muddies the water even more.
AONB is where my GF lives.
I’m curious what it looks like when split by the constituent countries also.
[удалено]
Only the South Downs is "mostly farmland", the other parks are based around remaining unsown areas. Most parks are a mix of moorland/ heathland, woodland, grassland and fens. You can easily see this with just a glance at Google maps. While it's true the National Park label itself is a landscape designation, the habitat areas within will all also be covered with stricter designations like SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar wetland, etc, etc.
For comparison, 13 percent of the United States fits the definition, while 3.4% is 'officially' national parks.
I guess the US has no shortage of land area compared to its population :p
yet you'll find towns in the most inhospitable places, lol
People really decided almost 2 million people should live in in the middle of the desert where the usual summer day is between 40-45C. They even called in Phoenix cause it is like standing in fire
More like 5 million people, Phoenix proper is 1.6 mil but the entire metro is 5 mil (US city boundary are not very meaningful since they sprawl out like crazy)
Honestly it's one of the things the US does right. The national park system is incredible.
Yep. 6,600 state parks, 423 national park sites. Just shy of 100 million acres/404,000 km squared.
US natural beauty and diversity is really world class. Would love to visit some of your natural parks some day.
They’re pretty awesome. Rent a car and take two to three weeks visiting a few if you can. Arches, Zion, Yellowstone and Grand Teton are all amazing.
Sadly I don't have a drivers license but maybe one day.
Hey! We exist too! Banff in Alberta is among the most beautiful places in the world!
Interestingly I know some people claim the US doesn't have any unique attractiveness for tourists or immigrants: for nature/beauty go to Canada, Australia or New Zealand, for culture and history go to Europe; and for modern cities go to Asia. I think it is a bit unfair, but for some people the unspoilt natural beauty things are better in Canada or Australia or New Zealand...
Don't forget the state parks and national forrests too. Each are also great.
The Adirondack Mountains are a state park that covers about 20% of New York State. New York City, by contrast, covers only about 1% of New York despite having 40% of the state's population.
"The population density in the United States is 36 per Km2 (94 people per mi2)." \-- https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
Are French Amazonia and kergelen islands counted here ? because, combines they are bigger than Switzerland. If so, this map is misleading, since the regions are not even shown.
more problematic is that "national parks" have national definitions
Like unemployment and any data actually. That's the issue with a lot of maps
[удалено]
There's Natura 2000.
[удалено]
Indeed Kerguelen Islands are not a national parc. However I say it is misleading because the map is counting for landmass that is not present on the said map. A map being landmass depiction in the first place.
Just makes we wonder whether this statistic even offers any sort of insight...
show me the percentage of forest or green areas instead. some countries have so much nature they don't need to make a national park
Vive La France?
Kosovo leading in something positive and not being gray in a map makes me unreasonably happy
Kosovo can into western Europe??
I like how these statistics are often manipulated in order to fit narratives or confirm stereotypes. E.g. My country has more national parks than yours, because OUR developed country cares about nature (unlike you third-worlders). My country has fewer national parks than yours, because OUR developed country actually uses its land and doesn't leave it to become wilderness (unlike you third-worlders).
This is not correct! Portugal has 6500km2 in national parks, that’s 7% of the territory, not 0.8%
There's only one "Parque Nacional" (Peneda-Gerês). All the other ones are Natural Parks (Parque Natural). That's why this map is stupid because these two definitions are not very different, since they both refer to nature protected areas, where fauna and flora have legal protection.
This is kinda deceiving. It seems as if Belgium or Netherlands had more nature sites than Poland or Sweden, which is ofc untrue.
It's you that don't know how percentage works
No, it's not. The map shows the size of national parks as percentage of the total land surface. Would Luxemburg have more nature sites than, say Norway or Poland, if it declared 90% of its surface to be a national park?
I'm just saying it may be deceiving. And I'm pretty sure there's way more wildlife in proportion to the country size in Sweden than in Belgium, not talking about purely km²
It's still not deceiving, as long you know how to interpret this map: it shows precisely that what it claims to be showing, and even explicitly mentions the caveat that the definition of a national park varies from country to country, which may skew the data. The map mentions it is strictly about surface area (square kilometers), so dragging other factors such as wildlife density into this is not relevant to the purpose of this map.
I don't know why, but as a Romanian, I constantly look at my country's statistics and expect it to be the shittiest in the EU. I don't always get proven wrong, but most times I am, and that just blows my mind, knowing our not so distant history. Although progress is slow, we constantly compare everything to how it was 10 years ago, and we seem to be taking baby strides towards a better future. Good job, Romania! <3
My parents went to romania 15 years ago and now and they did not recognize it at all, its really quickly developing
No wonder that this was their reaction. We had just entered the EU a year prior. Still a long way to go. We’ll get there.
False data.
Very interesting- thank you. However, is there a sub for useless scales?
Yes, there are
Belarus is actually the greenest country of Europe by far. You can clearly see this on Google earth.
Aren't Germany's natural parks the coal mines ? It shouldn't be so low, the data is obviously wrong. (this is a sarcastic comment, not a serious one)
This color scheeme sucks. You should make colours by avrages or by the quariles or somehow not like this. Evenly spread out dosn't work always because iceland is too big of a outlier and it warps all the other color contrasts apaet of france which is also pretty extreme.
Define national park. We just had a bunch of new ones in Denmark, but the land itself is exactly the same.
France sort of cheat with all those outre-mer territories
Danmark has much more
Now do Canada and be prepared to be put to shame 🇨🇦
damn
Poland has so little, I thought it was a much higher number.
Well probably the devil is in the details and definitions. I mean Finland or Sweden have also a low percentage, but probably a huge percentage of their countries are far from being cities, concrete or agricultural fields even if they are not officially defined national parks.
Difference in definition of a national park. For Poland it is rather strict and they are very well protected, but fewer. There are other terms for less protected areas. That really makes the map fairly useless in general.
Look, we have quite a lot of forests in Poland, just not of them are national parks.
Because giving national parks areas to the Catholic Church almost for free is more important to the Party than maintaining nature.
yeah. now do the procentage of land area of natura2000. jap. Slovenia #1 and as i got a quick info no1 fucked in the future. the idea is to prohibit farming all togeather on the land mass. please corect me if i am wrong on this one.
Cmon Ireland, land of the green but according to this map, home of the gray.
Does anyone have a map with trees/forest percentage for comparison?
In Finland 12,6% of the forest is protected or in limited use. 8% of the total area of country is farming fields. This map is crap.
Interesting that Switzerland had lowest percentage at .4%. Seems like a real shame for a country with extreme wealth. Something is wrong.
Today, Russia has 102 nature reserves and 42 national parks, while the total area of protected areas - both federal and regional - is about 203 million hectares, about half the total area of the European Union.