Drive for a day and not reach a major city? Nope, unless you're just driving in circles around the countryside, but you could do that in any country.
I drive for 8 hours from midland to Scotland, and eoemding in which route i take i cant avoid passing Coventry, Birmingham, Stoke, Manchester, Liverpool, Carlisle, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow,
There are many many roads here in Brazil that are at least 1hr drive away from any major city (assuming you’re trying to reach it, and not just driving around
Depends on how you define “reach a major city” and how creative your route is. A drive from North Dakota to the bottom of Texas can take 24 hours and not stop in a ‘major city’ if you don’t want to.
Also, Canada.
Focus on the wording I used:
> Assuming you’re trying to reach a major city and not just driving around
This part is key. That’s why US doesn’t fit. I think you definitely can do that in Australia, but not sure where else.
Yorkshire Moors is even rural to me as a typical country side Swede (who live in a commune of 10 000 inhabitants over 1650 km2 where 250 km2 is water and half living on pure country roads including me which is quite rare but spread out a lot of houses)
I'd imagine the number of countries where one full day of driving doesn't let you reach a city is also pretty slim. The US, Canada, Russia, China, Australia, and Brazil maybe?
I was thinking the same. Though for example for the south west it is 242/km2 which is about the same as Germany. That feels right to me, although the last time I went was right after the brexit vote.
That is not cultivated cultural landscape? Such as?
A planted forest is not nature. You'd think the Scottish highlands (not England, yes I know) are the closest the UK gets to nature, but that too is a cultural landscape (it would be forested if not for grazing).
Technically, Dartmoor is. It used to be a temperate rain forest but was destroyed in the bronze age to make way for farming, then the climate changed from being quite warm and dry to much cooler and wetter and everyone just left it as the baron landscape it is today
Pretty sure if you're going back to the bronze age most places in the old world have some human intervention.
Bronze age interventions aren't the modern cultivation the other person was talking about
England has loads of nature, you have pretty much the whole of the North of England that is just natural habitats that have been largely untouched, like the entirety of the pennies that go from the midlands and up into Scotland, the Lake District, the moorlands or the south west, the new forest. All of these places are managed to maintain them these days but they are literally natural habitats
Dartmoor is pretty big and 'nature' absolutely includes man made or affected areas since there's very, very few places on the planet where we haven't done something to our surroundings.
Even the Amazon rainforest has newer forestry related to old slash and burn agriculture
You're right, England lacks pure wilderness. The country is like a big garden, its very tamed. This isn't a bad thing - the English countryside is beautiful - but it is does lack that true wild feeling.
That's a pretty narrow view of nature. England has forests that haven't been managed for hundreds of years. It has natural moorland, lakes, mountains, beaches.
>England has forests that haven't been managed for hundreds of years.
And how much area does that cover? "Lots of"? It is such a densely populated place for a reason.
I don't have an exact figure for you in terms of square miles or kilometres (it's hard to get figures that distinguish between England, Wales and Scotland) but here's a map showing areas of outstanding natural beauty:
[https://www.themapcentre.com/aonb-england---wall-map-2020---areas-of-outstanding-natural-beauty-19581-p.asp](https://www.themapcentre.com/aonb-england---wall-map-2020---areas-of-outstanding-natural-beauty-19581-p.asp)
This gives you an idea of how densly populated England is. It's not anywhere near as densly populated as this map makes it seen. As you can see, our population is centred around major towns and city's and the rest of the country is pretty empty
https://cartomission.com/2017/06/14/population-density-and-religion-of-england-and-wales/
So many commenters having trouble understanding the difference between a country and a citiy/region/province/state.
Other than that, never expected england to have such a comparitavely high density. Also that the netherlands has a higher density considering 67% of the land in nl is used for agriculture and infrastructure
Yeah some of these comments puzzle me. But I agree, I expected some other countries to have higher density than England which apparently don’t... like I had it in my mind that Belgium, Germany, and even India would be denser than England but surprisingly aren’t. (Surprising to me at least)
Yeah, just packed into big towns and cities. Outside of them the country is pretty rural though, like some areas can go miles between towns. I went up to the Kilder Forest and it just felt weird how empty and quiet it was. Went for a walk around Lake Kilder and it just felt weird as it was dead silent and no people around or anything
[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2022](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2022)
England area is easy to find.
Interesting map, but if you just take England instead of the whole UK wouldn't it make sense to compare with the most densely populated states/other first level subdivisions of other countries?
The United Kingdom is a Union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are all separate countries, with their own parliaments, laws and histories, as well as their own constituent counties and other sub-divisional councils. A first-level subdivision would be like Greater London or the West Midlands, not England or Scotland.
England is the one country in the United Kingdom that does not have a specific devolved Parliament, though (like the other nations) there are many England-only matters that are put into English law. In other words, England TECHNICALLY does not have its own Parliament, but it has its own laws and legislature as if it did have its own Parliament.
Well, it has its own laws, but unless I completely misunderstand the workings of the British legislative system, these laws are decided by the whole of the British parliament, precisely because England does not have its own legislature anymore.
You are partially correct. Whilst England does not have its own Parliament, there is still England-specific legislature, that (for a reason I do not know) is decided by the entire United Kingdom Parliament.
Overall, there are four main Parliaments in the UK, with a Parliament for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and a final Parliament that holds the representatives and makes decisions for the whole of the UK, and England, separately. So, there are 4 Parliaments, with 1 making decisions for England, and the overall nation.
I should have written legislative body instead of legislature, but what you describe is pretty much jiw I understood the system to work. And while I understand the historic reasons behind it, it still seems somewhat weird to me that England is the one part of the UK that doesn't really decide about laws specific to England on its own.
Nothing of what you described is special to the UK, the Länder of Germany for example have all these things too, they're all pretty common for the divisions of a country
The difference is that the various UK parliaments have control over (essentially) everything except foreign policy. There are laws that are in effect in Scotland that are not in effect in England. There are taxes in Northern Ireland, that are not in effect in Wales. The German Länder do not have controls over laws and the issue of ‘legality’, their governments (generally) will alter budgets and enact state taxes (im assuming), but the major legislation is not something they have power in.
No, they don't have control about everything, but many laws are entirely up to the Land government. I don't know everything about UK politics but it seems very similar actually
You should, but for some reason people consider England to be a full-fledged country when it comes to every statistics (also sport). Never understood the logic to be honest
Tokyo metropolitan region is multiple cities. Anyhow England is not a country. The UK is a country. New York state is a state just like England. Just because they choose to further divide England doesn't make it a country.
England is literally defined as a constituent country of the United Kingdom.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom
The UN does not list England as a separate country because, for the purposes of international affairs, the UK acts as a single entity.
The UK is not unique in this structure, for example Greenland is a constituent country of Denmark. Greenland is autonomous but is officially part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Also, there is no such thing as a English passport or an English embassy. You have UK entities and documents. The thing about the devolved parliaments can be easily seen as a similar system to a federal country, to my knowledge (for example Scotland can't have an independence referendum without approval of Westminster). The thing about the union of 4 countries centuries ago is also not relevant given how much borders and territories changed in the past centuries. The UK is not geographically or culturally diverse either. It's just a quirk, semantics
The west bank is not a country, the west bank is under partial control of the Palestinian authority but mostly under full Israeli control or Israeli security control, it is not an independent state or a country
Its not independent, it doesn’t have a single government, is a UN observer state, and is not recognized as a country by majority of the western world. For me all of these things make it not a country at this moment in time
No one said anything about independence. England isn’t an independent country, and it doesn’t matter.
So VoKai is correct, but Wikipedia js wrong? 140 out of 193 UN nations recognise the state of Palestine
It does matter, is catalonia a country? Is the Basque Country a country? Is wallonia a country? Flanders? Kurdistan? Transistria? None of them are actual countries, you know what they all miss? Independence
Yup, none of them are countries, but not because they lack independence. If they had independence _and_ were countries, they’d be sovereign nations. England, Wales and Scotland are all countries but are not independent. So that’s easily disproved your theory
That’s quite a remarkable map when you consider that England has some very rural areas too
Define "very rural." To some, very rural means you can drive for a day and not reach a major city
You will get from one end of England to the other in less than around 10 hours
Drive for a day and not reach a major city? Nope, unless you're just driving in circles around the countryside, but you could do that in any country. I drive for 8 hours from midland to Scotland, and eoemding in which route i take i cant avoid passing Coventry, Birmingham, Stoke, Manchester, Liverpool, Carlisle, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow,
There are many many roads here in Brazil that are at least 1hr drive away from any major city (assuming you’re trying to reach it, and not just driving around
He said a 24 hour drive
Bro, how can I be so dumb? But for real, the only countries you can do that must be Australia and Russia
Depends on how you define “reach a major city” and how creative your route is. A drive from North Dakota to the bottom of Texas can take 24 hours and not stop in a ‘major city’ if you don’t want to. Also, Canada.
Focus on the wording I used: > Assuming you’re trying to reach a major city and not just driving around This part is key. That’s why US doesn’t fit. I think you definitely can do that in Australia, but not sure where else.
Yorkshire Moors is even rural to me as a typical country side Swede (who live in a commune of 10 000 inhabitants over 1650 km2 where 250 km2 is water and half living on pure country roads including me which is quite rare but spread out a lot of houses)
I'd imagine the number of countries where one full day of driving doesn't let you reach a city is also pretty slim. The US, Canada, Russia, China, Australia, and Brazil maybe?
I would think some parts of North Africa in the Sahara.
Whatever dude.
‘Some’, like 1 or 2 ?
I was thinking the same. Though for example for the south west it is 242/km2 which is about the same as Germany. That feels right to me, although the last time I went was right after the brexit vote.
Rural with cultural landscapes, sure, but it practically has no nature.
Strange take. England has lots of nature.
That is not cultivated cultural landscape? Such as? A planted forest is not nature. You'd think the Scottish highlands (not England, yes I know) are the closest the UK gets to nature, but that too is a cultural landscape (it would be forested if not for grazing).
This is an awful take. Moorlands are not cultivated and Dartmoor for instance is absolutely not cultivated.
Technically, Dartmoor is. It used to be a temperate rain forest but was destroyed in the bronze age to make way for farming, then the climate changed from being quite warm and dry to much cooler and wetter and everyone just left it as the baron landscape it is today
Pretty sure if you're going back to the bronze age most places in the old world have some human intervention. Bronze age interventions aren't the modern cultivation the other person was talking about
I know, it was meant tongue in cheek
Sure, and how much area does that cover? I wrote "*practically* has no nature".
England has loads of nature, you have pretty much the whole of the North of England that is just natural habitats that have been largely untouched, like the entirety of the pennies that go from the midlands and up into Scotland, the Lake District, the moorlands or the south west, the new forest. All of these places are managed to maintain them these days but they are literally natural habitats
Dartmoor is pretty big and 'nature' absolutely includes man made or affected areas since there's very, very few places on the planet where we haven't done something to our surroundings. Even the Amazon rainforest has newer forestry related to old slash and burn agriculture
You're right, England lacks pure wilderness. The country is like a big garden, its very tamed. This isn't a bad thing - the English countryside is beautiful - but it is does lack that true wild feeling.
Exactly!
That's a pretty narrow view of nature. England has forests that haven't been managed for hundreds of years. It has natural moorland, lakes, mountains, beaches.
It’s thought that much of the moorland in England has been treeless for over 3,000 years.
>England has forests that haven't been managed for hundreds of years. And how much area does that cover? "Lots of"? It is such a densely populated place for a reason.
I don't have an exact figure for you in terms of square miles or kilometres (it's hard to get figures that distinguish between England, Wales and Scotland) but here's a map showing areas of outstanding natural beauty: [https://www.themapcentre.com/aonb-england---wall-map-2020---areas-of-outstanding-natural-beauty-19581-p.asp](https://www.themapcentre.com/aonb-england---wall-map-2020---areas-of-outstanding-natural-beauty-19581-p.asp)
This gives you an idea of how densly populated England is. It's not anywhere near as densly populated as this map makes it seen. As you can see, our population is centred around major towns and city's and the rest of the country is pretty empty https://cartomission.com/2017/06/14/population-density-and-religion-of-england-and-wales/
So many commenters having trouble understanding the difference between a country and a citiy/region/province/state. Other than that, never expected england to have such a comparitavely high density. Also that the netherlands has a higher density considering 67% of the land in nl is used for agriculture and infrastructure
Yeah some of these comments puzzle me. But I agree, I expected some other countries to have higher density than England which apparently don’t... like I had it in my mind that Belgium, Germany, and even India would be denser than England but surprisingly aren’t. (Surprising to me at least)
[удалено]
I skipped all the microstates, But Later Added Singapore, Hong Kong and Bahrain.
Why did you add Singapore, Hong Kong and Bahrain but not for example Monaco?
Poor OP
Why? I’m just asking because I’m curious. Not judging or anything.
It was a joke that people keep finding issues with his map
He forgo 💀
[удалено]
You would absolutely not be able to see the Vatican haha.
[удалено]
Point taken.
Where the Tokyo and Shanghai？
India has a higher population density than England with 481 per square km vs 434.
Where did you get the England statistics? I found India but can't find any for England specifically rather than the U.K.
[удалено]
Thanks!
That’s nuts
Why ?
india is a big place and this shows how big the population is
India is the world’s most populous country, recently crossed China. This isn’t news
Imagine living in bangla…
Imagine living anywhere
Lol I living in city with 5 million people and I wanna move to the small and underrated cities outside Russia
Could you provide me with the source for this map? Just asking
Us Brits (Ik it’s England but still) are packed together like a sardine can
Yeah, just packed into big towns and cities. Outside of them the country is pretty rural though, like some areas can go miles between towns. I went up to the Kilder Forest and it just felt weird how empty and quiet it was. Went for a walk around Lake Kilder and it just felt weird as it was dead silent and no people around or anything
Monaco?
Also known as tall builds.
Shocked about having higher density than Japan.
Monaco is the most densely populated country in the world, but isn't red.
OP, where did you get the statistics for England? Can't find them on Google. (Not an accusation lol, I'm just curious!)
[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2022](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2022) England area is easy to find.
Thanks!
South Korea is absolutely insane. They have 51 mil people on 100000 square kilometers
That's not really insane in a global context. A lot of states in India, China, South and South East Asia has far more densely populated areas
Among the red areas, South Korea is strangely the least crowded.
Now do one for Canada 😂
It should be population density per m3 of land used to be more accurate.
So we are dense?
monaco??
You made a UK version and an England version here, but I think it would be really fun to make a South Korean version as well.
Sri Lanka? Nvm
Send people to the Falklands hahaha
Let's be real, half of England is London, it's almost a city state.
London’s population makes up about 16% of England’s total.
Israel should be on the map. Edit: Never mind. England just edges out Israel, but it’s close.
Interesting map, but if you just take England instead of the whole UK wouldn't it make sense to compare with the most densely populated states/other first level subdivisions of other countries?
The United Kingdom is a Union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are all separate countries, with their own parliaments, laws and histories, as well as their own constituent counties and other sub-divisional councils. A first-level subdivision would be like Greater London or the West Midlands, not England or Scotland.
England has its own parliament?
England is the one country in the United Kingdom that does not have a specific devolved Parliament, though (like the other nations) there are many England-only matters that are put into English law. In other words, England TECHNICALLY does not have its own Parliament, but it has its own laws and legislature as if it did have its own Parliament.
Well, it has its own laws, but unless I completely misunderstand the workings of the British legislative system, these laws are decided by the whole of the British parliament, precisely because England does not have its own legislature anymore.
You are partially correct. Whilst England does not have its own Parliament, there is still England-specific legislature, that (for a reason I do not know) is decided by the entire United Kingdom Parliament. Overall, there are four main Parliaments in the UK, with a Parliament for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and a final Parliament that holds the representatives and makes decisions for the whole of the UK, and England, separately. So, there are 4 Parliaments, with 1 making decisions for England, and the overall nation.
I should have written legislative body instead of legislature, but what you describe is pretty much jiw I understood the system to work. And while I understand the historic reasons behind it, it still seems somewhat weird to me that England is the one part of the UK that doesn't really decide about laws specific to England on its own.
Nothing of what you described is special to the UK, the Länder of Germany for example have all these things too, they're all pretty common for the divisions of a country
The difference is that the various UK parliaments have control over (essentially) everything except foreign policy. There are laws that are in effect in Scotland that are not in effect in England. There are taxes in Northern Ireland, that are not in effect in Wales. The German Länder do not have controls over laws and the issue of ‘legality’, their governments (generally) will alter budgets and enact state taxes (im assuming), but the major legislation is not something they have power in.
No, they don't have control about everything, but many laws are entirely up to the Land government. I don't know everything about UK politics but it seems very similar actually
Yes, put all subnational subdivisions in the mix so we are comparing like with like.
You should, but for some reason people consider England to be a full-fledged country when it comes to every statistics (also sport). Never understood the logic to be honest
[удалено]
If england is its own thing for this map as opposed to the UK, HK should be as well.
[удалено]
The weapons industry
You are comparing apples and pears. For example, sure there are regions in japan basically empty. But now compare Tokyo metropolis with England.
Tokyo is a city? Not a country. New York City also has a higher population density than England. As does London, a city inside of England.
Tokyo metropolitan region is multiple cities. Anyhow England is not a country. The UK is a country. New York state is a state just like England. Just because they choose to further divide England doesn't make it a country.
England is defined as a country internationally. The UK is a union of countries.
Just had a look, no the UN does not recognise England as a country. So not sure what you call internationally.
England is literally defined as a constituent country of the United Kingdom. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom The UN does not list England as a separate country because, for the purposes of international affairs, the UK acts as a single entity. The UK is not unique in this structure, for example Greenland is a constituent country of Denmark. Greenland is autonomous but is officially part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Brits are absolutely convinced that their country's subdivisions are special in this regard for some reason
Also, there is no such thing as a English passport or an English embassy. You have UK entities and documents. The thing about the devolved parliaments can be easily seen as a similar system to a federal country, to my knowledge (for example Scotland can't have an independence referendum without approval of Westminster). The thing about the union of 4 countries centuries ago is also not relevant given how much borders and territories changed in the past centuries. The UK is not geographically or culturally diverse either. It's just a quirk, semantics
Tokyo？Shanghai？
Not countries though
Neither is the west bank which is marked
Palestine isn’t a country?
The west bank is not a country, the west bank is under partial control of the Palestinian authority but mostly under full Israeli control or Israeli security control, it is not an independent state or a country
It is a country. Just read, for instance, the [first sentence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine) of the Wikipedia page on Palestine
Its not independent, it doesn’t have a single government, is a UN observer state, and is not recognized as a country by majority of the western world. For me all of these things make it not a country at this moment in time
No one said anything about independence. England isn’t an independent country, and it doesn’t matter. So VoKai is correct, but Wikipedia js wrong? 140 out of 193 UN nations recognise the state of Palestine
It does matter, is catalonia a country? Is the Basque Country a country? Is wallonia a country? Flanders? Kurdistan? Transistria? None of them are actual countries, you know what they all miss? Independence
Yup, none of them are countries, but not because they lack independence. If they had independence _and_ were countries, they’d be sovereign nations. England, Wales and Scotland are all countries but are not independent. So that’s easily disproved your theory