Nearly half of Americans didn’t go outside for recreation in 2018 | Hacker News Reader

Nearly half of Americans didn’t go outside for recreation in 2018

coloradosun.com

It seems like this survey is about "outdoors activities" and not just activities that take place outside. For example, traditional sports like basketball, football, baseball, and soccer aren't listed in the outdoors section even if they take place outside. The survey is instead only counting activities like fishing, hunting, hiking, etc as outside activities. That will wildly skew the results.

EDIT: Here is the fine print of the survey:

>In this report, outdoor activities include adventure racing, backpacking, bicycling (BMX), bicycling (mountain/non-paved surface), bicycling (road/paved surface), birdwatching (more than 1/4 mile from home/vehicle), boardsailing/windsurfing, camping (backyard or car, within 1/4 mile of vehicle/home), camping (recreational vehicle), canoeing, climbing (sport/indoor/boulder), climbing (traditional/ice/ mountaineering), fishing (fly), fishing (freshwater/other), fishing (saltwater), hiking, hunting (rifle), hunting (shotgun), hunting (handgun), hunting (bow), kayak fishing, kayaking (recreational), kayaking (sea/touring), kayaking (white water), rafting, running/jogging, sailing, scuba diving, skateboarding, skiing (alpine/downhill), skiing (cross-country), snorkeling, snowboarding, snowshoeing, stand up paddling, surfing, telemarking (downhill), trail running, triathlon (non-traditional/off road), triathlon (traditional/road), wakeboarding, wildlife viewing (more than 1/4 mile from home/vehicle).

Indoor climbing is an outdoor sport?!

LOL. Nice catch.

I guess Peloton® is too then.

Yes, because the study was for outdoor rec companies, so harnesses and climbing gear is relevant even if the sport is done inside. Lead or bouldering is done both inside and outside and very similar gear is used.

I would assume this is because these are the recreation events that often bring Colorado tourism revenue.

That's absolute bullshit then. Even a walk in the park should classify as outdoor recreation.

Yeah, the bizarre thing is they included "walk for fitness" as an activity in the "indoor fitness" section of the report but not outdoor. Tons of middle-age to elderly people walk outdoors for fitness. Excluding those people, who may not be physically up to many of the more active sports (or aren't interested in any of the 5 types of hunting they did count) is incredibly misleading

Additionally, look at how many these activities require significant spend by the participant.

For those confused or angered by the definition of "outdoor activities" the article is about the "outdoor recreation" industry. Think REI, Patagonia, or Cabela's. So yeah, hiking will count but a stroll through your neighborhood won't. Climbing would, but soccer is out.

I'd like to say the cost of a lot of outdoor recreation is really, really, high. People wanna say just "go outside, it's free." But... it's really not unless you live in a very rural area where you have your own land to wander or extremely close to a publicly owned land.

A lot of outdoor activities require investment to participate in. It's easy to laugh at the bicyclists wearing spandex until you try to ride a hundred miles and chafe your balls into a pair of blisters. Let alone a bicycle comfortable/safe enough to ride long distances without injuring you. Even just walking can be really damaging without proper shoes, or with bad ones because they're all you have.

For a lot of people, simply trying out an activity might cost a hundred or two hundred dollars once everything is done, and that's waaaaaay too high for most people. I think if there were public gear closets like the one referenced in the article or a bigger push towards communal access/usage of gear, the number would go up somewhat.

I don't doubt that this is what people are thinking and why they are not doing it but that doesn't make it the reality.

In the bicycle case, yes, you want proper clothing for a 100 km massive ride that takes you most of the day but that is such a high bar.

For about $300 you can get a decent bike that will last you forever with some maintenance. With just your ordinary clothes you will have no issues riding around the mostly empty suburb streets for 10km. A cheap bike isn't an instant death trap, just get a non department store basic road bike. It won't be feature packed, it won't be ultra light but it will be fairly reliable and perfectly safe. With the added benefit that any replacement parts will be super cheap because its all entry level bits.

> cost of a lot of outdoor recreation is really, really, high.

Well that's not true at all. There's an army surplus store that sells tents, sleeping bags, and backpacks that'll set you back about $50 for all three. It'll way 20lbs before you even add your food, but its cheap.

See, the Columbia/REI/NorthFace stores sell an IMAGE. Yes, their products are the lightest on the planet, but you don't NEED that premium gear to have fun outside (unless you're climbing).

Outdoor sports are cheap. These companies just convinced us that we really need a $500 tent, $300 sleeping back, and $500 shell to truly enjoy the outdoors.

Backpacking can certainly be extremely expensive, not just because of equipment prices and outdoor usage fees, but because in popular areas it's quite difficult to get permits, which requires a lot of time spent planning as well as a lot of flexibility in vacation time and transportation options.

Hiking is very cheap for virtually all of Los Angeles, the second largest city in America.

This is because: - 88% of households have a car, enabling them to get to a hike [1] - the average vehicles per household is 1.6 [1], thus the average across 2 households is 3 cars. Considering most people to hiking with friends, this greatly increases the chance a vehicle is available regularly. - there are many hikes available in state parks in the Santa Monica mountains within 15 miles of the majority of the population - parking is very cheap.

I agree that rock climbing or kite surfing are way more expensive, but there is little substitute for a good hike.

I was at least introduced to a couple dozen of the activities on that list through the scouting movement growing up. It was pretty cheap for my parents, the expenses for our trips and acrivities were raised largely through community fundraising. Of course, I have thousands of dollars of outdoor gear now, but it has been accumulated slowly but steadily over decades.

Can that be true?? My mind is totally blown. There must be rather huge regional variations in this, though. In my part of the nation, the vast majority of people engage in outdoor recreation at least once per year -- and most much more often.

What's really amazing is that people would probably OVER estimate the amount of time they spent out side recreating, so the number is probably actually lower. (I'm assuming the report is true and survey was well designed enough to get a decent percentage that's even close to accurate)

Depending on where you are and what infrastructure you have access to, going "outside for recreation" can be an ordeal.

For example, fishing and most forms of camping are relatively inaccessible to me. Public transit tends not to run to such places.

Part of the choice to go car-less would include budgeting to rent a car for the occasional trip.

I don't think the term is defined as narrowly as going into the wilderness. For example, they say:

> only 18% of Americans played outside at least once a week

I doubt one in five Americans are driving out to national parks once a week, so "outdoor recreation" probably includes things like soccer in a city park or going for a bike ride.

That being said, I wish the article was less vague with its use of terms like "play outside" and "outdoor recreation" so we didn't have to read tea leaves to deduce the reality.

I looked at the paper, I couldn't readily spot what they considered "outdoor recreation". Camping, fishing, hiking, biking, and jogging/running were things they mentioned repeatedly though.

I have no idea if they included, say, reading in a park.

Most of America is drive to work, drive to the store to buy things, and drive home.

You are downvoted but this is correct. I find that driving totally drains me of any energy and desire to do any outdoor activity and I just want to sit down and play games.

Not necessarily a bad thing, really. For billions of people cheap food, cheap gas, and a big TV is a dream.

It is a bad thing that lives for many people have been reduced to being trapped in cars, eating shitty food and watching mindless crap on tv.

It's not true.

They define a discrete list of "outdoor activities" that are relevant to their members -- mostly equipment provides for niche sports/activities with expensive equipment needs (climbing, skiing, cycling, camping/backpacking, fishing, hunting, scuba diving, etc.).

In particular, someone who walks in their local park every day or plays pickup soccer/basketball at the local outdoor sports field would answer that they didn't participate in any of the listed activities.

Ah, that explains it. They're using an exceptionally narrow definition. Although that I'd argue that camping/backpacking doesn't require expensive equipment unless you're seeking to maximize your physical comfort.

The great outdoors is now a 4 foot strip of grass between your outer wall and the sidewalk or your neighbor's house, and the suburbs go on forever. The outdoors isn't as accessible as it seems for a lot of people.

Doesn't apply in my area, but it's easy for me to understand.

I dunno, I don't buy this explanation when I think about my anecdotal experience. As a kid I recall it was pretty easy to find fun games to play in yards or in suburban streets. All we needed was other kids. I suspect that this change is more cultural than environmental.

You might be surprised by how many places have no yard anymore -- a huge number of subdivision houses don't have a yard big enough to throw a ball across. It's not like it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago. Where there was one house, now there are 8 or more.

Let's not even get started with the HOA rules, good luck playing in the dirt, digging holes, playing with toys and building forts and stuff. HOA lawn codes and such.

I don't think I've ever seen anywhere like that. I live in the suburbs near Baltimore, and even the lower income and Section 8 neighborhoods at least have a playground for kids, most have basketball/tennis courts as well, or some big open field that anyone can use. Everywhere I've visited while traveling has been like that as well. The outdoors is especially accessible if you have a car, there are federal and state owned parks all over the place.

Suburbs frequently have parks, fields, courts or trails embedded throughout them.

>The outdoors isn't as accessible

should be noted that this foundation (which seems to have quite a big interest in promoting the 'outdoors industry') seems to define the term as "uninhabited nature" going by their listed activities.

Plenty of people are still socially active outside. I'm not sure why running in the city park, taking long walks or playing basketball on the court is supposed to be less valuable than hiking.

This is probably subjective but for me, walking or running in nature is a substantially better experience than doing that in a city park.

My foreign wife gained 30 pounds after moving to the USA. She attributes it to reduced walking and an increase in food consumption.

Same thing here. I gained weight moving back as well, due to lack of time and motivation for exercise since I am working without a real break, no walking for anything, and ubiquitous availability of comfort food coupled with high stress due to high cost of living and that work schedule noted above.

I visited Romania a few years ago, and I would say it's a lot more than just that. Fast food was actually a rather rare thing to find outside of any major city, in fact restaurants in general were just not that common. The variety of things at a regular market were far more limited than what you'd find here in the US, however the quality of the food was incredible.

I would be very interested to see the numbers for a more inclusive definition myself, though still saddened people aren't hiking, camping, and generally spending time in nature a bit more.

Ironically, the outdoors areas are more crowded than ever.

Just moved from Denver to Austin and I totally understand why... It sucks outside in most places.

Yeah, it’s gotten pretty bad in the Bay Area too. Lack of basic hiking courtesy (saying hello when you pass people, giving right of way to people going uphill on narrow slopes, walking single file when you’re in a group, etc) would be frustrating enough on its own, but it’s way beyond that - leaving trash, playing music on Bluetooth speakers, people mountain biking for what seems to be the first time and having no clue how to behave on their bike, etc.

Any trail that can be found with a basic google search on the weekend is just not worth it.

With so many people living in big cities, this doesn't surprise me. If you live in a big metro area, getting out of the city limits might take an hour or more and requires having a car. Outdoor recreation areas inside city limits or near city limits are already over-crowded.

That alone makes proper outdoor activities like mountain biking, rock climbing, or hiking difficult to do. The article shows pictures from Grand Junction and other parts of Colorado where outdoor recreation is generally easy and accessible, but a lot of cities make it far more difficult to venture out and in big parts of the country outdoor recreation just sucks unless you travel. I lived in Central California for years and moved away because hot summers, dry, boring terrain, and distance to decent trails made riding my bike or hiking extremely time consuming (or just lame).

If cities want people outdoors (and they should), they need big walkable greenbelts, and big parks with recreation options in or very near city limits. Many cities have really terrible options for getting out.

Ironically if you look at a place like Hong Kong you'll see highrise right next to wild mountains. In North America, everyone wanting to be close to nature has blocked off the next person from being close to nature.

I think I agree.

I have a list of "outdoor" places I want to visit for various reasons, ranging from a specific highway rest stop mentioned in a fictional podcast episode to national parks. All of these require a vehicle.

If I were to start visiting tomorrow, I would need to rent a vehicle.

Do I live in an urban setting? Yes. Do I still go outside for recreation? Yes. I am fortunate enough to walk, I am fortunate to have parks and bike trails within walking distance to my living place and I do those things, and like this.

Does any of this count as the posted article's "outdoor recreation"? Good question.

For me, yes. I get outside. I want to avoid cabin fever. I want fresh air more than two open windows giving a cross-breeze [which is also great].

That headline is wrong. Nearly half of Americans didn't participate in a list of 42 outdoor recreation activities that this particular trade group profits from, which is quite different from "didn't go outside for recreation".

"Outdoor recreation" was defined as: adventure racing, backpacking, bicycling (BMX), bicycling (mountain/non-paved surface), bicycling (road/paved surface), birdwatching, boardsailing/windsurfing, car or backyard camping, RV camping, canoeing, climbing (sport/indoor/boulder), climbing (traditional/ice/mountaineering), fly fishing, freshwater fishing, saltwater fishing, hiking, hunting (rifle), hunting (shotgun), hunting (handgun), hunting (bow), kayak fishing, kayaking (recreational), kayaking (sea/touring), kayaking (white water), rafting, running/ jogging, sailing, scuba diving, skateboarding, skiing (alpine/downhill), skiing (cross-country), skiing (freestyle), snorkeling, snowboarding, snowshoeing, stand up paddling, surfing, telemarking (downhill), trail running, triathlon (non-traditional/ off road), triathlon (traditional/road), wakeboarding and wildlife viewing.

That's a pretty decent list, but it excludes what are probably by far the two most common forms of recreation that occur outdoors: walking in local parks and playing team sports outside (organized or pickup). But for some reason does include _indoor_ climbing!? Probably because this is a trade group comprised of companies that make an enormous amount of money from gym climbing but make exactly $0.00 when kids spend all summer playing in the community park ;-)

Direct link to report: https://outdoorindustry.org/resource/2019-outdoor-participat...

Thanks, I was wondering about this. If it included walking in local parks I would have been extremely surprised by the numbers.

It seems to be more of an industry report, like nearly half of Americans didn't participate in outdoor activities that require gear from REI.

What a weird list. I haven't done a single item of that list in years, but I would say I go outside for recreation about 100-200 times per year. Walking around the neighborhood? Kicking a soccer ball around in the backyard? Shooting hoops with a hoop attachment to a garage? None of that counts? What a ridiculous headline!

Yes, curious that my weekly soccer game doesn’t count, but birdwatching does...

I play basketball, soccer and ultimate outdoors probably 15 days/month. Apparently that means I don't go outside for recreation.

But it's scary out there! /s

Seriously though, I wish I could be outside more often, but here in South Texas 9 months of the year it feels like death outside (heat, allergies, what-have-you) and the other 3 months it is typically too dark when I get home from work.

I've always thought boating might be a cool thing to do/learn, but I've never lived close enough to water to try it.

Makes me feel pretty lucky that I spend an hour a day rain or shine taking the kids to school on my cargo ebike. We all get outside time and I think there are fewer fits from the when riding in the bike’s front box. I have a dual-battery Packster 80 with a 28mph motor on it. Gets across town faster than driving at rush hour and carries two adult passengers as long as they are fit enough to climb in and out.

If I didn’t have so much to carry I’d ride a Load, they have full suspension, mine only has front.

This is .. absurd. I find it hard to believe.

We live in an urban centre (Somerville, near Boston) and go outside not just every weekend, but almost daily with our three year old.

In the evenings we do neighbourhood walks. In the winter it's even more fun with a flashlight

On weekends we're out of the house by 10am on average. We are minutes away from reservation areas and so much green space

It's stupidly easy to be surrounded by trees and nature, even in the city. We don't even need a car to do it (but we do use one at times!)

Long walls are great for thinking ... visual stimulation coupled with the fresh air makes for a very rewarding investment of time ... even a short walk every few hours is a game changer when thinking about some mental challenge ... it helps but there is no need to go out of your way to do this walking in any location ... vary your path ... there is no excuse to not walk often ... breaking a sweat several times a week is as easy as a good long hard walk

...and increased obesity rates: causation or correlation?

Maybe we are just preparing for the point when climate change makes going outside difficult and largely unsafe...

Really? How would even a 3 degree change make going outside unsafe or difficult?

We had a rare occurrence of snow in our small town. Some kids went outside to play and a neighbor called on them to the police. Lesson learned - just stay in the freaking house all day.

Was there real consequence for this though? Getting the cops called can be essentially a no-op sometimes.

For a lot of folks it's pretty terrifying to have the cops show up at all; especially, for something so benign as kids playing in the snow. Many people have been killed by police for doing less.

I know these encounters can be detrimental. I was careful with my wording. Notice I said sometimes.

Not be an ass, but "sometimes" for you is "always" for others. I think the chance of a bad outcome, for those with always, greatly outweighs your unlikely-hood of one...

Or you know, you could get shot.

I know people hate memes on HN, but the way I remember this story is the cops joined in with the fun: https://gfycat.com/evilwhimsicalaltiplanochinchillamouse-sno...

Why not just let the cops come and tell them you're playing in the snow and then the cops go away.

From an external POV, the police in America have a fearsome reputation for shooting everyone first and asking questions later. Can understand a hesitation at having any interaction at all.

Except the data is nowhere close to the hyperbole.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com